NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:00:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:00:23 +0100 From: lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> Organization: Trollbusters 3 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java EE Architecture References: <69e1528a-aa62-41ce-88e5-1540f437e89e@googlegroups.com> <0672ja-utj.ln1@tempest.fredriksson.dy.fi> <1xI7u.39986$ER3.22143@fx28.iad> <49d3d3fe-e70b-422d-a1b6-cb9c90c59f89@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <49d3d3fe-e70b-422d-a1b6-cb9c90c59f89@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 51 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-YnI1NJDZXrP5dljKtSsahKgxalnyoxDB9JNZ+VxU/HDVChVhMELNBxe/6I8QLzFJkd8GikmYPku4Q/O!bgUGcKCkHbv5DaIpmPevO8/OaSn8QJtpPwSjvgjtOhNxuAtwzafj3gcbINlDsgmi5gaMS48msETx X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com 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: 3572 Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26389 On 19/10/13 22:48, Lew wrote: > Donkey Hottie wrote: >> For example one Person: me. >> >> I have multiple Identities. Donkey Hottie is one. There are others. > > This entire discussion has revolved around the definitions of "Person", > "Identity", and other types as if they had a correct definition. > > Whether a particular identifier is used in a program or not is a matter of art > (where "art" is used in the technical sense, lest one need reminding here), > and part of that is whether it conveys useful information to maintainers. In the > restricted domain of discourse for any given system, for example a payroll > system, a term like "Person" might well have a useful definition and scope. > > To lay down a ukase like "One should never use a 'Person' type in a production system" > is as pointless as it is self-serving. What on earth are you babbling about now Bloch? How is it 'self-serving'? You yourself opined 'This entire discussion has revolved around the definitions of "Person", "Identity", and other types as if they had a correct definition.' Do you see that last bit? ... The bit that says "... as if they had a correct definition" Those few words describe perfectly to me your complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand, it's exactly *because* Person does not have a 'correct' (although I prefer exact) definition (in terms of a software system) that it should not be used. Object Oriented software engineering is a state of mind Bloch. You obviously don't have it (the required state of mind) so I suggest you consider your responses before you make a fool of yourself again [snip more incoherent nonsense] ... to avoid cargo-cult programming. Why use one word when 100 will suffice jeez -- Lipska the KatŠ: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun GNU/Linux user #560883 - http://www.linuxcounter.net