Definition
The naked objects pattern is defined by three principles:
- All business logic should be encapsulated onto the domain objects. This principle is not unique to naked objects: it is just a strong commitment to encapsulation.
- The user interface should be a direct representation of the domain objects, with all user actions consisting, explicitly, of creating or retrieving domain objects and/or invoking methods on those objects. This principle is also not unique to naked objects: it is just a specific interpretation of an object-oriented user interface (OOUI).
The original idea in the naked objects pattern arises from the combination of these two, to form the third principle: - The user interface should be created 100% automatically from the definition of the domain objects. This may be done using several different technologies, including source code generation; implementations of the naked objects pattern to date have favoured the technology of reflection.
The naked objects pattern was first described formally in Richard Pawson's PhD thesis which includes a thorough investigation of various antecedents and inspirations for the pattern including, for example, the Morphic user interface.
Naked Objects is commonly contrasted with the model-view-controller pattern. However, the published version of Pawson's thesis (see References) contains a foreword by Trygve Reenskaug, who first formulated the model-view-controller pattern, suggesting that naked objects is closer to the original intent of model-view-controller (MVC) than many of the subsequent interpretations and implementations.
Read more about this topic: Naked Objects
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Mothers often are too easily intimidated by their children’s negative reactions...When the child cries or is unhappy, the mother reads this as meaning that she is a failure. This is why it is so important for a mother to know...that the process of growing up involves by definition things that her child is not going to like. Her job is not to create a bed of roses, but to help him learn how to pick his way through the thorns.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)
“It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possess—after many mysteries—what one loves.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)