http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html A common issue I see is the temptation to solve every problem by introducing an extra layer of abstraction. Abstractions aren't a problem in themselves but I'm seeing situations where developers are trying to think of ever more bizarre situations (that ... en Robert Annett Tue, 15 May 2007 18:18:51 GMT Pebble (http://pebble.sourceforge.net) http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1179301209449 I'd personally (and this could turn into a religious argument to compete with emacs verses vi) see Party as an interface which defines the <i>behaviour</i> of being a party to a legal agreement rather than as a superclass with shared attributes. <p> This is subtly different to having a superclass of entity and trying to share/shoehorn all the attributes there. Robert Annett http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comments http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1179301209449 Wed, 16 May 2007 07:40:09 GMT http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1179253131120 I was with you until you got to the legal identifiers. Don't know if you are aware of it or not but the example you cited is a recognized (and useful, IMHO) analysis pattern called the Party pattern where the super-class of Person and Organization is called "Party". The context is that a person or an organization can be party to a business transaction. Max Lancaster http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comments http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1179253131120 Tue, 15 May 2007 18:18:51 GMT http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1178783910293 This sounds rather familiar! I remember when I started coding I always wanted to write the most generic re-usable thing in the world ever... As time went on I began to realise that I was not writing a closed source package. I was writing some code to do a job, and that the code (from my companies point of view) was open... <br /> Now I am a great fan of the JAGNI principle (You Ain't Going to Need It). A rule of thumb I use is to only create a super class if there is a serious chance of actually putting some code in there. If you are going to end up with an 'empty' super class you have to seriously wonder if it is adding any value.... <br /> <br /> Tom Tom Grey http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comments http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2007/05/04/the_neverending_abstraction.html#comment1178783910293 Thu, 10 May 2007 07:58:30 GMT