Received: by 10.68.241.98 with SMTP id wh2mr13336596pbc.7.1337335307349;
        Fri, 18 May 2012 03:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: pr3ni747pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: design issue
Date: 18 May 2012 10:01:45 GMT
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <slrnjrc7g8.rk7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>
References: <8093436.1147.1337093242655.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr17>
 <31161485.1210.1337180987250.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvn14>
 <slrnjr97sg.rk7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>
 <86d8ce9a-af01-4bd2-a2fb-efb74f94085b@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net aZmhtyYR36bvOQN03O0SvA+VBij8rnkzwfiAf+ZdRMXCNJhCWAyMEOzDnXNZTomL6o
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pQ3SRXns8rp0XZF/CgYKfk45CRE=
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Fri, 2012-05-18, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:49:53 AM UTC+1, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-05-16, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:47:22 PM UTC+1, softwareEngineer wrote:
>
>> >> I have two component, one (let´s call it A) manage the request (command)
>> >> from external systems and another (let´s call it B) manage its own command.
>> >
>> > lets not! Why A and B? Can't we have someting that conveys a little
>> > meanining? How about ExternalCommandProcessor and
>> > InternalCommandProcessor?
>> 
>> Almost as bad. There's information we don't have access to -- A and B
>> already exist, and have some meaning and responsibilities, but we
>> haven't been told what they are.  We can't make up useful names.
>
> well I think A and B are poor names. I really
> hope the actual code doesn't use them.
> How do you /know/ A and B have
> meaning and responsibilities assigned to them?

I don't understand what you're getting at. It's obvious from his
posting that A and B only exist as placeholder names in the posting
itself. And it's obvious from *our* postings that we don't like that.
What's there to argue about?

...
>> > read the Proxy design pattern
>> 
>> Yes; he seems to be influenced by the design pattern line of thinking;
>> then going to the source is a good idea.  (Personally I don't like
>> them very much though.)
>
> why not? Just curious. Too restrictive? Broken?

I don't want to be involved in a heated discussion about that, too.
I just mentioned it so it wouldn't seem like I was advocating design
patterns.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .