Talk:Object association

Worthwhile article?

I've added the 'references' and 'linkless' templates to the article, but actually I wonder whether the article has any reason for existing? Shouldn't it be merged into Object-oriented programming - or rather, shouldn't that long article be split into several articles, and this either become one (much enlarged) or be incorporated into one? ColinFine 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Please see my comment below about possibly merging this page with Object_composition and then redirecting it to Object_composition

Article can centralize and focus binding architectures in OOP

I put a link into this article from the 'inheritance semantics' topic map. I think the article is potentially very useful since inheritance, functional composistion, event/delegate binding, object aggregation and object composition are all 'binding' technologies/architectures. The key term 'association' is important, I think, in providing a focused list of the different object oriented programming approaches. The enlargement you mentioned should be focused on 'association approaches' in object-oriented programming. Such approaches are documented: from the original ACM papers in the 1960s to current research in aspect oriented programming. A short list of such approaches along with their strengths and weaknesses would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia.

For example, the burdens of (1) object construction and (2) surface API replication (see Virtual Inheritance) for object composition are sublte but important details that can get lost in articles focusing on other topics in object-oriented programming. Furthermore these 'burdens' only exist in comparison with inheritance (as an object association approach).

I just linked to this article (I'm not the author) but I think the enumeration of 'object association' approaches would be good. Is this 'focused' article what you had in mind (enumeration of OOP association architecture/technology)?

In the mean time I'll put a 'See Also' section to link to the 'inheritance semantics' topic map.

BTW : This article could provide links to code examples in other articles that destinctly show some of the important but subtle advantages/disadvantages of the various approaches.

Shawnk^talk—-Shawn wiki 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion to delete this page

It looks to me like this information should be merged into the Object_composition page. I like the cleanliness of this page better (the other is too long and less focussed), but Object_composition is where all the other relevant pages are linking to, and this page seems just to duplicate what is there.Harborsparrow

I moved some info to Object_composition and deleted other info

This page annoying brings up aggregation and composition, states that they are different, but fails to describe in what way they are different. Doesn't seem very helpful to me. I suggest zap the whole page at this point; all this stuff is adequately covered in other related pages. "Object association" is not a technical term as far as I know; more like just an imprecise phrase.Harborsparrow 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation hasn't improved in the least. The object composition page doesn't explain the difference properly, either, but this page didn't do any explanation at all. The referenced definition was misleading. I've made this page a redirect. Rp (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]