Timeline for Is defining an empty class for representing a domain entity necessarily a sign of bad architecture design?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2019 at 23:21 | vote | accept | ianmandarini | ||
| Nov 28, 2019 at 23:10 | answer | added | LoztInSpace | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 20:43 | answer | added | Vector Zita | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 10:42 | answer | added | Ewan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/1199931054448091136 | ||
| Nov 28, 2019 at 5:57 | answer | added | casablanca | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 4:01 | answer | added | candied_orange | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 27, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | ianmandarini | Is the possibility of ever overriding the Groom method the condition for deciding that his is a good or bad design for now? I do not necessarily know for now if the requirement for a different Groom behavior for cats and dogs will appear as the PetShop grows. Perhaps, cats should keep their belly intact? I don't know for now. In that sense, that possibility would be a valid scenario regarding what I am asking. | |
| Nov 27, 2019 at 20:35 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | You don't ever intend to override the Groom() method in your derived classes? | |
| Nov 27, 2019 at 20:35 | comment | added | Helena | You could just add factory methods that return animals. Animal getDog() { return new Animal(); }, in case the behaviour of Dog and Cat deviates in the future you can replace Animal with a subclass. | |
| Nov 27, 2019 at 20:29 | history | asked | ianmandarini | CC BY-SA 4.0 |