RE: [Rails-devel] Re: Suggested object model for core generic framework

[Brett L. <wak...@ea...>]

I'm thinking this is probably a good case for creating an abstract=
 base-class that we can use to derive each of the special cases from while=
 still inheriting all of the more "standard" abilities. 

All we need to do is separate out what items are common to all companies,=
 and which are special cases.

I think that some things, like whether a company can own shares of stock=
 (e.g. 1870), and whether it can't (e.g. 1830), can be covered by a simple=
 boolean because we'll already be writing the code to manipulate the stocks=
 elsewhere, so the only thing the company will need is a conditional check=
 of the boolean before initializing an ArrayList to hold the company's=
 stocks.

The really deviant stuff, like minor company's ability to become major=
 companies, or the folding in the shares of several companies into a single=
 company (e.g. 1856's creation of the Canadian National Railway) probably=
 need specific definitions unto themselves. These are the sorts of things=
 that, IMO, have no business being in the more generic "default" classes.


---Brett.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/1/2005 at 8:23 PM Erik Vos using eri...@hc... declared:

>But what is then the distinguishing feature of a Minor company?
>Minors come with 1 (1835/37, 18EU), 2 (1854) and 5 (1826, 1841) shares.
>Some can convert to major companies (1826), others can merge into
>new major companies (1835/37, 18EU, 1841) or new minor companies
>(1854: "local" (1-share) to "major local railway" (2-share)). 
>
>IMHO, the only fundamental division is between companies that can be=
 traded
>(i.e. shares can be sold: most if not all of the >1-share companies)
>and those that can't (most if not all of the 1-share companies).
>Perhaps that distinction warrants subclassing, but I'm not sure.
>

********** REPLY SEPARATOR END **********
This message sent with 100% recycled electrons.