Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Danny Ayers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:24:43 +0600
Just a comment on multiple inheritance - it can cause a lot of problems,
especially where naming is important : base classes with identical function
names can get pretty confusing. The Java lobby have shown pretty well that
m.i. isn't essential to an OO system (a Java class can only extend the
functionality of one other class, but can implement any number of abstract
interfaces) - if anything, removing it can make life easier. But the
question does remain - is the (alleged ;-) RDB bias of the W3C strong enough
to nobble some of the benefits of objects in RDF?
Personally I suspect that more generally the orientation of a lot of the
work done on web issues, particularly XML, could be counter-productive in
the long run - the emphasis on commercial enterprise and traditional DB
setups makes things all very rosy for e-shopkeepers, but to design standards
so focussed on just one type of activity (even though there are diverse
elements) might obscure paths to future solutions to problems we haven't
even seen yet. Gearing things to work with legacy systems can do a lot to
maintain those systems beyond their useful lifespan. Will relational
databases will be the predominant backend in 10 years?
Well, ok, probably...