>If you were stringent you wouldn't instanciate this abstract class but only
>subclassed concrete classes for concrete devices. Abstract does not
>have anything to do with not accessing (meta) data.
>
>In fact in an earlier discussion we found that VFP is good in a kind
>of abstract classes thet get concrete at runtime and that this isn't
>a bad decision.
>
>But like Christof said it's hard to understand why a device should
>suddenly change. If you interpret your concrete device object as that
>device and have a seperate communication class which instanciates
>the proper device class, then you can split functionality.
>
>Why is that data access your concern? Because you already
>programmed the initial configuration of the device object is taking
>place from outside? Or because all data access is done by data
>access classes and you want to make the device class work
>with those data access classes on the one side, to be stringent,
>but you also want it to be a self contained class which does not
>only work in conjunction with this kind of data acess object?
>
>Bye, Olaf.
I realized yesterday that I was going about it in the wrong way. I now know that a change of the device should be initiated from outside the device class.
Thank you!
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only