From: Doug Sutherland (wearable_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 2002-02-28 22:01:17
John,
> I KNOW OO ... I've just spent 3 years at University
> an almost everything taught is OO.
The point of that dissertation was to attempt to move
this design/planning discussion towards entities and
relationships, objects, classes and interfaces, object
methods that make up APIs, and design patterns that
flesh out relationships via event handling. The nature
of OO is not really modular like components, it is
more abstract, and for good reasons.
> I'm not sure how this allows us to add new classes/
> objects, but don't care right now lets get this show
> on the road!
I'm not sure where the confusion is. If you modify
an existing class, extend an existing class, or add
new classes or interfaces, you run a make file, the
build script detects what has been changed, and
updates shared libraries. This is not much different
from Java, where class files get updated. If a new
class file is in the classpath (Java) it is found
and used; if a new (revised) library is in the load
library path (C/C++), it gets used.
I would imagine that like all software, we will have
a development tree and a stable release tree, will
go through major and minor releases, and have the
precompiled binaries that work on the various target
deployment platforms, probably including
- Win9x, WinNT, Win2K
- Linux 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels
> hunting around for UML programs
Although UML is useful, there is danger in jumping
into automated tools. We have a small number of
objects and relationships here. We should be able
to sort that out the old fashined no tech way.
-- Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:39 BST