Re: Aggregation vs composition
From: Matthias Hofmann (hofmann_at_anvil-soft.com)
Date: 05/04/04
- Next message: VisionSet: "Re: Is delegation just a route to obfuscation?"
- Previous message: Eric Kaun: "Re: Why is OO Popular?"
- In reply to: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 4 May 2004 07:20:49 -0700
Michael Rauscher <michlmann@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<c764g1$7lr$00$1@news.t-online.com>...
[...]
> I know but that's not the issue. The point is that Daniel and I disagree
> on Daniel's assumption that a composition relationship implies that the
> whole *must* hide it's parts, it *must* act like a facade and it *must
> not* return references. IMO that's wrong.
It is obvious that the UML does not require you to hide the parts of a
composition, because it allows the parts to be removed from the whole. How
do you want to do that if the parts are hidden?
Best regards,
Matthias
- Next message: VisionSet: "Re: Is delegation just a route to obfuscation?"
- Previous message: Eric Kaun: "Re: Why is OO Popular?"
- In reply to: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
