Re: [Rails-devel] Design Question regarding Minors/Majors [corrected]

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

On 2014-04-26 06:56, Stefan Frey wrote:
> John:
> I agree with the content of your proposal.
> 
> We differ in the fact that I prefer composition over inheritance for 
> companies in Rails.

I am an old C++ programmer and think that way, but I'm willing to use
interfaces rather than inheritance if it makes things easier for you.
I haven't yet read the page you cited, but I will.

> My favorite structure would be do define the following interfaces (or 
> before Java 8 abstract classes):
> 
> CompanyOwnership
> CompanyOperation
> CompanyCreation
> 
> Concrete implementations would be e.g. PrivateOwnership and 
> PublicOwnership, TrainRunning and FixedDividend and 
> CreationByNationalization, CreationByMerger and CreationByIPO.
> 
> which when allow to define only one company class and then set the 
> ownership, operation and creation behavior accordingly.

I like that idea too.

> One detailed comment:
> My proposals were for XML templates, it did not imply creating new Java 
> classes. XML company templates are much more lightweight than new classes.

I have noticed both techniques in the code, but am still figuring out
how they interact.

> Except from that I fully agree with your proposal, however it would be 
> great if you were able to include 1856 (and current prototypes 1826, 
> 18Scan?) into your analysis of nationalization?

Those games' mergers are very similar to each other, but not to 1835/37
(not only no reserved shares, but no predetermination of what companies
will merge).  So I think they should have their own class rather than be
included in the one I've called NationalCompany -- but maybe I should
use some other name, since CGR and Etat/SNCF are national companies too.