Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:36:13 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:35:57 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: How is this "pattern" called?
References: <pattern-20120518104439@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <ydnlikpbhon.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <lp2dr7da6p0jslnua32ldd4uki1036ibfs@4ax.com> <jp67dc$fe8$1@dont-email.me> <rhedr7ti7idd7ratbaludl5m14jo60p04l@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <rhedr7ti7idd7ratbaludl5m14jo60p04l@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <z_CdncDz595QXSvSnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.230.202.8
X-Trace: sv3-QpUY86K7LmUu/2abWrwzoZ0bdb5lV1tSeob3Jj0oAcbB3rBm/d7pZhLfzpftFp+zE30gYnkEdr/EnqM!APpM+wCL2HJDAtJBPs8E9iRKzJ220xu1zBpFfjL894ii4/+bGgA4Er2P1bltImcG2TStO2F+JNEP!gWGs6nkmX0xoIyszgAjz1sWRHODgHhONtej8WTWKbJnC
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2801
X-Received-Bytes: 2994
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:14632

On 5/18/2012 2:13 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:20:11 -0700, markspace<-@.>  wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2012 10:50 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>        a case of KISS or maybe YAGNI.
>
>> I like these too; good thoughts.
>
>       I have tended to avoid using OOP patterns except for what I came
> up with myself.  I did try reading one of the OOP patterns books, but
> ugh!  Some people seem to think that the last thing you should is do
> in OOP is write a statement that actually instantiates an object.
> (Qual horreur!)  Instead, you call a factory -- is that it? -- and
> have all sorts of indirection.
>
>       If you *really* need that, fine, but I do not.  The closest that
> I have come to this is related classes needing common code.  I have
> them inherit from a class with that code.  That code class is never
> instantiated itself.
>
>       With all of the hoopla over OOP patterns, it is difficult for me
> to tell how much they are really needed.
>
>       Yes, I go for keeping it fairly simple.

I think a lot depends on the answer to one key question:

What is the cost if this needs to be changed?

If we are talking about a widely distributed API, where a change will
break thousands of programs, it is worth doing a lot to minimize the
risk of incompatible change. If we are talking about code that is used
in a couple of places in one program, KISS and refactor if necessary.

Patricia