Sponsored Link •
|
Advertisement
|
Advertisement
|
This page contains an archived post to the Design Forum (formerly called the Flexible Java Forum) made prior to February 25, 2002. If you wish to participate in discussions, please visit the new Artima Forums.
Message:
> I'm not sure what Mike is looking for here, but it sure sounds like an abstract class. Absolutely not. What I'm talking about is an "abstract behavioural specification". What are objects all about? Most objects possess a set of features and encapsulate some state. Given the fundamental nature of such features to OO, it is always surprises me that in typical models, a complete specification of the required (or the modelled) behaviour is left out completely. An abstract behavioural specification on the other hand describes the state the object must be in before a particular feature is invoked, and the state of the the object after the feature has been invoked. Non of this has anything to do with the eventual implementation, which may be as complex, as simple. as efficient or as elegant as the programmer chooses. So what? So we then have an unambiguous, implicitely documented statement of the software's semantics, which can, if required, be verified at runtime. At least we would have that if Java supported Design by Contract. See: Replies: |
Sponsored Links
|