From: Jim K. <ji...@ji...> - 2003-11-07 19:18:33
|
Derek, I have created a section on the OpenGOOP Inheritance Feasibility Page called "glossary of terms". Please feel free to add content to this and other pages. Any registered user can edit most OpenG.org pages. If you can think of better ways to organize this information, please speak up. So far I have just been dumping infomation onto this, and other, pages. <http://www.openg.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=OpenG+Fwk% 3A+OpenGOOP+Inheritance+Feasibility> -Jim Derek Shpuniarsky <ds...@ya...> said: > Hi All, > > I'm new to the list so let me first introduce myself > as quickly as possible: > Derek Shpuniarsky > San Jose/SF Bay Area > Many years of LabVIEW development > Some textbook knowledge of OOP through a software > engineering book and learning (beginner level) C++. > > I'm loooking forward to working on this project with > all of you and hope I am able to contribute as much as > I learn. > > Now M2C... > > It seems to me, the best name for these types of > methods/classes depends on the context. During 'high > level' system design (i.e. at the stage where we only > care that we will be using an oscilloscope and not an > HP<whatever>) it would be best to call them Abstract > Methods/Classes since they aren't tied to a particular > implementation. When implementing them in the code it > would be best to use the term Dynamic, as in "Dynamic > Method/Class Call Interface", since it describes its > function. > > This leads me to agree with Jim, that we should use > the term Abstract Method/Class. However the definition > for this term should contain 'dynamic' since it > describes how it is implemented. > > BTW, has a glossary of terms been started? > > Derek > > --- Jim Kring <ji...@ji...> wrote: > > Niels and Bjørnar, > > > > After listening to the arguments you both make, I > > agree that "abstract" > > might be the best term to use, rather than > > "dynamic". Also, I think that > > "prototype" has an OOP design pattern (Gang of Four) > > definition and > > "template" has an edit-time connotation, which make > > these two choices not > > very attractive. > > > > -Jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: > > ope...@li... > > > > > > [mailto:ope...@li...] > > > > > On Behalf Of Svingen Bjørnar > > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:23 AM > > > To: > > 'ope...@li...' > > > Subject: RE: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual > > Methods should be > > > called Dynamic Methods > > > > > > > > > I only have limited experience with OOP from C++ > > some years > > > ago. IMO virtual, dynamic and abstract are > > misleading, since > > > what you are defining is more of a template > > (dynamic > > > template) or prototype. "Dynamic" is not that far > > off seen in > > > context, but when left alone it sounds strange. > > All in all i > > > think "abstract" is better. > > > > > > Just my $0.02 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Niels Harre [mailto:ni...@ha...] > > > > Sent: 6. november 2003 23:22 > > > > To: > > ope...@li... > > > > Subject: Re: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual > > Methods should > > > be called > > > > Dynamic Methods > > > > > > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > I've given the suggestion some thought.. I agree > > that > > > > "Virtual Virtual > > > > Instruments" doesn't sound too good. But I'm not > > too sure we > > > > should change > > > > the name to "Dynamic Methods". > > > > > > > > The case with double adjectives in "Virtual > > Virtual > > > > Instrument" may also > > > > arise when using "Dynamic": Consider the > > explanation "A > > > > dynamic method > > > > dynamically calls (using VI server) a method in > > a descendant > > > > class". In my > > > > opinion pretty much the same, and too close to > > the underlying > > > > technology. > > > > > > > > The question is: What is a "Virtual Method" > > thought to accomplish? > > > > > > > > - it defines an interface (the connector pane). > > > > - it has no implementation in the class where it > > is defined. > > > > - its implementation is deferred to a descendant > > class. > > > > > > > > That is an abstraction... consequently I suggest > > that > > > > "Virtual Methods" > > > > should be called "Abstract Methods". Also, - > > taking it a step > > > > further - > > > > what about classes having the same features as > > listed > > > > above... Should they > > > > be called "Dynamic Classes". The class itself is > > not dynamic. > > > > However, - > > > > "Abstract Classes" are abstractions... > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. Even though I > > don't belive > > > > we should > > > > spend too much time on this. > > > > > > > > All the best > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > At 20:16 05-11-2003 +0000, Jim wrote: > > > > >Hello All, > > > > > > > > > >Stephen Mercer, a member of the LabVIEW > > Development Team at > > > > NI, attended our > > > > >group meeting last night. During the OpenGOOP > > Inheritance > > > > discussion he > > > > >recommended that we call Virtual Methods > > "Dynamic Methods" > > > > to avoid confusion > > > > >with the term Virtual Instruments (we don't > > want Virtual Virtual > > > > >Instruments). I like this idea. Any > > objections or comments? > > > > > > > > > >-Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net > > Giveback Program. Does > > > > >SourceForge.net help you be more productive? > > Does it > > > > >help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, > > and help us help > > > > >YOU! Click Here: > > http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > > > > >Ope...@li... > > > > > > > >> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net > > Giveback Program. Does > > > > SourceForge.net help you be more productive? > > Does it > > > > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, > > and help us help > > > > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > > > > Ope...@li... > > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback > > Program. > > > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? > > Does it > > > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and > > help us help > > > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > > > Ope...@li... > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback > > Program. > > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? > > Does it > > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and > > help us help > > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > > Ope...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, > 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest > developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, > WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/ > _______________________________________________ > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > -- |