Re[2]: What makes Java so special? -- JAVA400-L

>> Am I just missing something here?  I thought that the whole reason behind
>> "object orientation" was that the application wouldn't be tied to a specific
>> platform.  For example, I would think that your display form would call a
>> database server program in order to access the data on box "X".  In turn, I
>> would think that you would have a "generic" version of the database server
>> program that could access anything, regardless of "box".  I would also think
>> that the "winners" in this fight would have "platform optimized" database
>> servers (of the same name as their "generic" counterparts) that could be
>> installed in place of the "generic" ones when a specific server was to be
>> targeted.  Forget the fallacy of ODBC, just run whatever works best on a
>> given platform.  Is this wrong?
>
>Yes, this is wrong. 
>
>Object orientation and platform independance are two different things. Java
>just happens to have both which is part of why it is so significant. 

If we use OO to design our client properly, then the client has a clear,
well defined standard interface to the server.  It is this interface which 
makes the client application independent of the server platform. 

>Object orientation has to do with application coding and indicates the use of
>some principles that make code development faster, code re-use easier, cuts
>down coding, debugging, maintenance time, etc. 

Don't forget that code re-use is the end-goal.  It is re-use which drives all 
the
other perceived benefits of using OO in any form.

To that end, we try to make our OO app as machine-independent on the client as 
possible.  Why bother designing all those classes, etc. only to have to 
re-write the 
blasted things so they run on another client platform?  Likewise, what's the 
point 
writing an awesome OO system that can't talk to another server platform without 
a re-write?  In each case, we lose our prime goal of code re-use.

>Object based systems, which seems to be what you are refering to, do not
>necessarily have platform independance unless they use an industry standard
>for accessing objects. SOM and DSOM followed a published standard. CORBA
>would be the objects standard choice of the day, competing with Microsoft's
>object models (darnit, were they COM and DCOM?). Anyway, talking to an object
>would be object based. 

Well said!  The independent platform here is (obviously) the server.

>So, your application issues a request to an object broker which translates
>that request off to the target system. The use of object brokers, as you
>point out, insulate your client machine from it's target. But that doesn't
>mean that your client application is platform independant. It could be
>compiled C code on a CPM machine. So, while the client code can't move, it
>doesn't care what kind of machine or application is issuing a response since
>it is using an object model standard for it's requests. 

This idea of platform-specific client code goes against the grain of OO
design, but I'm sure that they're out there...

Buck Calabro
Commsoft

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "JAVA400-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---