Talk:Intelligent children pattern
BenMcDonald (Talk | contribs) |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I have this problem in my design at the moment. Would like some way of enforcing a BoxerPose in all Boxer objects. --[[User:BenMcDonald|BenMcDonald]] 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | I have this problem in my design at the moment. Would like some way of enforcing a BoxerPose in all Boxer objects. --[[User:BenMcDonald|BenMcDonald]] 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | What's this doing in the design maxims section? --[[User:Benjamin Gibson|Benjamin Gibson]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:00, 10 October 2010
Created the page with a brief explanation for the mean time, I think it is the general gist of it but I have yet to check in the paper. --Elliot Fisher 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Added a good picture --Jason Clutterbuck 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I keep looking at this page and wondering how is this at all a solution. Surely intelligent children tightly coupled and thus not at all extensible. The inheritance structure may still be useful for code reuse in this case but this approach seems flawed. --AlexGee 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A solution for me to the Parallel hierarchies problem would be if you could specify an 'abstract attribute' in Vehicle then you would have some sort of contract in the Vehicle class about an operator. You could call Operator base class methods from a known Vehicle object as having an operator in all derived objects would be enforced.
I have this problem in my design at the moment. Would like some way of enforcing a BoxerPose in all Boxer objects. --BenMcDonald 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What's this doing in the design maxims section? --Benjamin Gibson
