🚀 go-pugleaf

 Mark Fussell <mark.fussell@chimu.com> wrote:
> No it doesn't.  Are you actually testing this out?

You are right.  Martin Fowler is right.  I am wrong.

What I have been doing is testing in Object Pascal and translating back
to Java - hence the little syntax errors you have been picking up.

In my tests I was using an INCORRECT version of setCustomer that was
testing the incoming argument 'arg', rather than the private _customer
field.  Viz:

 void setCustomer (Customer arg) {
   if (arg != null) _customer.friendOrders().remove(this);
   _customer = arg;
   if (arg != null) _customer.friendOrders().add(this);
 }

rather than the original, correct:

 void setCustomer (Customer arg) {
   if (_customer != null) _customer.friendOrders().remove(this);
   _customer = arg;
   if (_customer != null) _customer.friendOrders().add(this);
 }

(All I can say in my defence is that because the Java language
distinguishes and encourages usage like "Order order _order"
and "Customer customer _customer", I need to be more careful in the
future.  In object pascal I am used to TCustomer Customer fCustomer)

Anyway, now that this has been brought to my attention, and re-tested,
I now see the simple beauty of the original Fowler code.  In fact, the
setCustomer algorithm is perfectly described in the Refactoring book
text p199: "first tell the other object to remove its pointer to you,
set your pointer to the new object, and then tell the new object to add
a pointer to you."

> Good luck...

Thanks for your patience and assistance,
-Andy



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.