[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Methods in the NIM requirements
Harald,
If I understand you correctly each interface should be represented in a
method. Therefore, each interface should be represented as a methods. In
addition, each interface should also have a set of attributes that provide
an alternate interface. Is that what you are saying?
Thanks for the clarification.
-Walter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 5:27 AM
> To: Weiss, Walter; nim@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Methods in the NIM requirements
>
>
> At 03:56 18.04.2000 -0400, Weiss, Walter wrote:
> >I am really struggling with this thread. Here is my basic
> problem. In many
> >of the models I have seen (including some I have worked on),
> a class is
> >defined with a set of attributes that can be manipulated to affect
> >particular changes in the system that the object is meant to
> model. Hence,
> >the set of attributes provide an interface to the system
> being described. In
> >contrast, traditional OO design approaches suggest that an
> object has a set
> >of attributes that are not directly accessable except with the use of
> >methods. Hence, the method is the interface to the object
> (and therefore the
> >system). If we want to incorporate methods in the NIM
> requirements, then the
> >methods should represent the primary interface, obviating
> the need for most
> >attributes (except as parameter definitons for the methods).
>
> let me suggest that methods and attributes will in many cases
> be duals; you
> can define one in terms of the other, and the direction
> doesn't matter much.
>
> however, attributes can be a very awkward means of modelling
> operations; I
> find it unnatural to model, say, a "reboot" operation, which
> affects the
> state of many, many attributes of many components, as a change to an
> attribute, even if it is called a "reboot button".
>
> however, I too have a problem seeing the relation between
> this discussion
> and the requirements document; my reading of the requirements
> document is
> that it requires things for which methods are needed, and no
> alternate text
> has been proposed so far.
>
> end of discussion?
>
> Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>