From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,95b198768e6c3970
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: Protected vs. unprotected objects
Date: 1997/12/18
Message-ID: <199712181359.OAA22005@basement.replay.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 299333628
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <34984B64.163C@mitre.org> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting
X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse@replay.com>
X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:00:04 -0500, Terry Devine <tdevine@mitre.org>
wrote:

> I'd like to be able to switch back and forth between protected and
> unprotected objects to be able to experiment with protection at various
> levels of a data structure.  However, if I read the LRM correctly, it
> would require major trauma (e.g., object.routine <-> routine(object)) .
> Does anyone have a good solution?

Well, of course. Structure your application in terms of
Abstraction.Operation. "Abstraction" is a package. In the body of the
package, you can implement "Operation" in terms of a protected operation
or not, however you please, without major trauma to the rest of your
system.

This is a software engineering technique called "information hiding."

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"I waggle my private parts at your aunties."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/