Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Better Inside-Out Objects :)

by Ovid (Cardinal)
on Oct 07, 2006 at 16:24 UTC ( #576865=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Better Inside-Out Objects :)
in thread Better Inside-Out Objects :)

That coding guideline is the problem I have faced quite a bit. Working with teams of developers who don't appreciate the merits of encapsulation sometimes means adopting a different strategy. As a result, I've reluctantly concluded the sometimes one has no choice but to try a different way. Additionally, I've found myself violating encapsulation at times when it's innapropriate (I know some will disagree, but derived classes shouldn't be looking at their parent's privates).

It's been pointed out that this strategy is essentially "use strict 'encapsulation'" and frankly, I'm happy with that as it solves the problem I wanted solved. Plus, when you're ready to move into production, if it's done properly, you can remove the encapsulation and everything still works (or you can leave it in if performance is not a problem).

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.


Comment on Re^2: Better Inside-Out Objects :)
Re^3: Better Inside-Out Objects :)
by dws (Chancellor) on Oct 07, 2006 at 16:32 UTC

    Working with teams of developers who don't appreciate ...

    That gets to the core of one of the problems I'm having with Inside-Out Objects. At one level, they're an attempt to apply a technical solution to a people problem. Sometimes that works, but other times, it just adds weight to the burden the project has to bear.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://576865]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-07-24 05:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (158 votes), past polls