User talk:Kuklei

October 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Package principles, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to justify why you dismissed my opinion on the subject
I believe, I justified my opinion on the subject with a concrete example to even illustrate why the REP does not necessary need classes of the same family.

If you believe that I have done a writing mistake, misspelled something or wrote outside the guidelines, please let me know how to correct my thought so that I can express it according to the guidelines. But if I haven’t violated and of the writing guidelines, I strongly believe that my argument holds and should be part of the Wiki. Or you can prove me otherwise and still remove my comment.

Thanks Kuklei (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on that paragraph
REP essentially means that the package must be created with reusable classes – “Either all of the classes inside the package are reusable, or none of them are”. Take a bit here and ponder what you just read. Someone before me here wrote this sentence and im just adding quotes to it “The classes must also be of the same family”. But this is not the case, in my opinion. Lets consider a class Bakery. I define that class to be able to bake bread. And that is what it does when I create it (instantiate). That bakery is a package because inside it has other classes like the oven and the baker. Both the oven and the baker are abstract classes that I have defined with a single purpose, one to heat and the other to put dough inside and bake it. Anything that does me this, creates me the bakery object that anyone else can use it as a plugin. Take the bakery and produce bread if you wish so. But the classes are not the same family. It could be but most probably not. The oven is not of the family baker. Nor of the family bakery. Hence, my comment. The writer goes on with the following sentences and I completely agree “Classes that are unrelated to the purpose of the package should not be included. A package constructed as a family of reusable classes tends to be most useful and reusable.” Of course, a bakery with good baker and oven always will produce good bread, no matter where you plug it in. Kuklei (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)