Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I'd say that was what you were trying to implement, not what > you were attempting to specify. How could you create an > object-oriented program without the implementation? You're obviously thinking of objects purely at the coding level. You don't have to. The essential notions of separation between interface and implementation scale up. So do notions of encapsulation, delegation, and type hierarchy (though perhaps not implementation-level inheritance). A company that provides payroll services is an object in a business architecture; it's an instance of a type, which can be substituted by other instances of the same type; it holds encapsulated data; and its internal implementation is hidden behind an interface. The service it provides is not just defined by a functional interface, but by quality metrics including performance, availability, security, and potential for change. Just like code objects. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
|
