From: Michael Garriss <mgarriss@...>
Date: 2003-08-01T07:53:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Extracting a parent class

I suppose that containment is a good idea but I do have methods that 
expect objs of the client side base class.  I could rewrite them to add 
the check the class of the incoming obj.  I think that I will just 
continue to use to_SomeClass type methods.  It's just a pain to have to 
keep them upto date.

Eric Hodel wrote:

>Michael Garriss (mgarriss@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>It is VERY possible that I should be doing it in another way.  My 
>>motivation:  I have a client/server arch.  The server maintains objects 
>>and a database.  When the client needs something I do not want the 
>>client to have full access to all the info found in those server side 
>>objects.  Some of it would be bad for the client to know.  I have 
>>classes the client side can use and I add the additional things the 
>>server knows about the object by creating a subclass of the client class 
>>and then just adding the one or two 'secret' members.  Does this make sense?
>>    
>>
>
>Perhaps containment would be a better solution than inheritance?
>
>class ClientThingy
>  attr :foo, :bar, :baz
>end
>
>class ServerThingy
>  attr :client_thingy
>
>  def initialize
>    @client_thingy = ClientThingy.new
>  end
>end
>
>Also, have you looked at DRb?  It will allow you to have a clean
>division between server-side and client-side.
>
>  
>