Serialising vs modelling
mchill at dial.pipex.com
Wed May 12 10:24:12 PDT 2004
> But at least you need in the interface a method
> public string serialise()
> public String toString()
> or whatever name method, but a one which can propose a way to exchange
> a whole object in once.
Really we should be, as you say, first modelling the relationships between our
various bits of data - the structure of our data.
When we come to serialising it, we don't need to worry about the actual method
call made on an object - this is an implementation issue. It might be java
coders make use of the 'serializable' interface, other languages do other
things, but this is independent of modelling or indeed working out the form of
the serialisation (eg the XML elements).
Indeed, to be clear about this, we shouldn't be concerned at this modelling
stage about the *method names* at all. We should just be interested in the data
relationships, both activity and static. Method names will largely depend on
the conventions of the languages being used - bear in mind we will probably have
FORTRAN implementations as well as Java.
Which might help to simplify some of the discussion... if we're really lucky... :-)
More information about the dm