[REBOL] Re: pseudo-class inheritance at a price ?
From: christian:ensel:gmx at: 9-Oct-2001 21:16
Hello Christian,
>> No answers here but something that would definitely entyice me to use the
>> class methods!
> Hmm, I have to admit that I haven't been thinking about object over ip
> connection. However, since class are still object! and object-instance are
> object! too (in the rebol sense), I would expect to serve both class and
> object through a connection...
Whenever it comes to making OOP objects persistent - and at the very moment
I don't see too much of a difference between writing class instances to disk
and transferring them over networkobjects - there's the problem of correctly
identifing the class a object belongs to.
Now, while thinking about that today's evening I've had an idea (don't know
if someone had this idea too long before me, at least till now I never heard
of it :)
Instead of letting Joe User (Joe Developer, to be exact) name it's classes
and later watching him running into the problem of names clashing between
different developers naming different classes
using the same name, why not let the user take care of forgiving _universally_
_unique_ _class_ _names_? This could be achieved very easily if we adopt the
model XML uses for namespaces:
foo: make object! [
super: none
class: http://www.christian-ensel.de/classes/foo.r
...
]
bar: make object! [
super: http://www.foobar.com/classes/foo.r
class: http://www.foobar.com/classes/bar.r
...
]
This also may serve as a solution to the networking problem as well,
because everyone who wants to work with such class based objects knows
where to get the class definition.
Or am I missing something?
Regards,
Christian (Ensel :)
