• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship


  • Subject: Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
  • From: Alexander Spohr <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:18:22 +0200

What are the other differences between RawMaterial and ManufacturedPart?
Wouldn’t it be enough to just flag the RawMaterial ones as such and just have one class for both?


	atze


Am 07.04.2008 um 18:02 schrieb David Avendasora:
You know, I was hoping to avoid the whole question if the domain was actually well-modeled or not, but with such dispersions cast on my flawless modeling skills, I must respond! :-P

I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor (RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart). A ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts. These component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another ManufacturedPart.

So I have modeled it like this:

ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part

To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can have one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple BillsOfMaterial.

Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be any number of levels deep:

ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat.

Or it can be very simple

ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial

What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_ belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a BillOfMaterial.

But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a case statement or adding the method to Part.

The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray wins. Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much less complicated, fragile way.

Dave


On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:

The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a Part to have a bill of materials. The default implementation could be

public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }

With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing Bad Things in code.

Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing is just wrong.


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden

--- Alexander Spohr Freeport & Soliversum

Fax: +49 40 303 757 99
Web: http://www.freeport.de/
Box: http://dropbox.letsfile.com/02145299-4347-4671-aab9-1d3004eac51d
---



_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
      • From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship (From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationsh ip (From: Bob Stuart <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationsh ip (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationsh ip (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationsh ip (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship (From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
  • Next by Date: Re: stateless component
  • Previous by thread: Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
  • Next by thread: Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relationship
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread