Hi.

Yes I am learning that true OO axioms may need to be broken for scalability
issues etc etc - I am not adverse to these changes as I am not a die hard OO
evangelist anyway. For me this is a very different paradigm. The inherited
design works because it was never meant to run on a middle tier, though some
better separation of the business/data layer could have been achieved.

I am currently looking at the Duwamish bookstore DNA example in the MSDN- is
this a good working example to base design decisions on?

Thanks again,

Nick.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Distributed COM-Based Code [mailto:DCOMDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM]On
Behalf Of Eunum Listener
  Sent: 17 September 2001 08:46
  To: DCOMDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
  Subject: Processor Objects (Tim Ewalds definition)

  To full use the real tech, such as DNA/.Net/J2EE, sometime you have to
break some OO rule. Everything model in OO sounds good, but hard to
implements. I still don't understand the detail of your design, but there is
a rule: Keep It Simple, Sir. (KISS)

  This message was posted using eunum
  To interact with a real-time, threaded interface to this e-mail list,
clickthe link below:
  DCOMDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- Users
Guide http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/mailfaq.asp contains important
info. Save time, search the archives at
http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/index.html . To unsubscribe,
mailto:DCOM-signoff-requestDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM

----------------------------------------------------------------
Users Guide http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/mailfaq.asp
contains important info. Save time, search the archives at
http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/index.html .
To unsubscribe, mailto:DCOM-signoff-requestDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]