Re: Aggregation vs composition
From: Robert C. Martin (unclebob_at_objectmentor.com)
Date: 04/24/04
- Next message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:59:08 -0500
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:10:38 GMT, "Daniel T."
<postmaster@eathlink.net> wrote:
>
>The lifetime issue is a side effect. If only one object has a reference
>of our B object, then obviously it has responsibility for the
>disposition of said B object.
Composition does not imply that other objects cannot hold references
to the component. The rule is that only one composite can have
responsibility for the component at any given time.
-----
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)
Object Mentor Inc.
unclebob @ objectmentor . com
800-338-6716
"Distinguishing between the author
and the writing is the essence of civilized debate."
-- Daniel Parker
- Next message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Daniel T.: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|