patterns-discussion AT lists.cs.illinois.edu

Subject: General talk about software patterns

List archive

Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions

From: phillip henry <ph1ll1phenry AT yahoo.com>
To: Messaging Design Pattern <dsheppard2k AT yahoo.com>, Christian Köppe <christian.koppe AT hu.nl>
Cc: "patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu" <patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:44:11 +0000 (GMT)
List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>

NB Apologies for multiple posting. Previous message was too large.

Hi, Al,

I'm still not convinced that we cannot "view these concepts in terms of drawbacks and trade-offs".

Allow me to introduce an argument of reductio ad absurdum. If it is "difficult to find problems/trade-offs" with what you call the MDP, should not all our code look like:

public Object doSomething(Object object) { ... }
public Object doSomethingElse(Object object) { ... }
public Object doSomethingDifferent(Object object) { ... }

or similar? That is, at what point do we say a collection of methods taking an object and returning an object is not sufficient to describe our
 system?

Phill

[patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions, Christian Köppe, 12/22/2010
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions, Messaging Design Pattern, 12/27/2010
  - Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions, phillip henry, 12/28/2010
  - Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions, phillip henry, 12/28/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions, Messaging Design Pattern, 12/28/2010