RE: spoon-discuss: Re: It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to

[Dan Waldron <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 
> > I don't like the idea of defining an object only by its 
> > ownership.  Then
> > we could get entity types of which some members are objects 
> > and others are
> > not.  I think this could be done in a better way by something like the
> > following:
> 
> I don't see the problem. An Object can only be created within the bounds of
> the Rules. How could the situation you describe occur? I defined Objects in
> terms of ownership in the same way that an Agent is defined by it's ability
> to perform actions. It was an attempt at some sort of consistency.
>
> 
> I don't think there is any need to generalise this far. What is the point of
> having everything owned by itself? We only really need to define Objects as
> entities that are owned by something else.

What about unowned entites of types that are ownable?  They aren't
objects, so they are not covered under the object-ownership rules, but
they can be owned, so we will need even more rules and complexity to cover
them.  It just strikes me as an inelegant and unnescessarily complicated
way of doing things.

I think I am going to give my support to Joel's object definition.  I will
adapt my other proposals to agree with that.  There are things that it
leaves uncovered-such as any way of transferring objects, and ways to
create and destroy (or limit the creation and destruction of) objects, but
I think it elegantly and simply covers the definition issue.

Poulenc.