[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design principles and ethics
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: Design principles and ethics |
Date: |
Mon, 01 May 2006 07:29:52 -0400 |
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 11:30 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> In order to guarantee confinement (and encapsulation, as you define it below),
> A. The instantiator must know that there is no unauthorized outward
> communication. Unauthorized by the instantiator, that is.
> B. The parent must know that information cannot be extracted from the program
> without the parent's consent.
Part A is correct. Part B is nonsense. Encapsulation is a policy that is
selected or rejected entirely by the child.
I actually don't think that confinement is what Marcus lost when he
removed constructors. I think what he lost was authentication,
integrity, and separation of concerns. There may be other ways to
re-establish these, but he has not yet examined them.
This needs a broader discussion of the constructor feature set, which I
have promised. We need to understand precisely what is getting lost
before we can sensibly respond to Marcus's challenge question.
shap
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics,
Jonathan S. Shapiro <=
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Tom Bachmann, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02