Talk:Behavioral completeness
From CSSEMediaWiki
(Difference between revisions)
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I threw this together on a whim. I think I am on the right track here. I also found this paper, [http://www.cs.ru.nl/ftfjp/2005/Pierik.pdf Pierik], which defines and compares | + | I threw this together on a whim. I think I am on the right track here. I also found this paper, [http://www.cs.ru.nl/ftfjp/2005/Pierik.pdf Pierik], which defines and compares Behavioural and Relative Completeness. Alas, I am not equipped with the skills to interpret their definition :( -[[User:Tureiti Keith|TK]] 04:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | Just a thought, but [[Strategy]] breaks this somewhat, no? --[[User:Kris Nicholson|Kris]] 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe by "Software object" they don't mean a single class, but the components that make up a representation of a real world object? In that case even though the [[Strategy]] pattern puts some behaviour into a separate class hierarchy, the behaviour is still contained within the "software object" via the composition relationship. --[[User:Elliot Fisher|Elliot Fisher]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:39, 7 October 2008
I threw this together on a whim. I think I am on the right track here. I also found this paper, Pierik, which defines and compares Behavioural and Relative Completeness. Alas, I am not equipped with the skills to interpret their definition :( -TK 04:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but Strategy breaks this somewhat, no? --Kris 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe by "Software object" they don't mean a single class, but the components that make up a representation of a real world object? In that case even though the Strategy pattern puts some behaviour into a separate class hierarchy, the behaviour is still contained within the "software object" via the composition relationship. --Elliot Fisher 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
