Searching for a term / notion / concept

This question refers to languages like C++ and Java, where
both objects and classes might have fields and methods (in
C++: »functions«).

How is an entity called that can have fields and methods,
when I do not care whether it is a class or an object?

A noun is wanted that can be placed into the sentence:

»Objects and classes both are ... . So as any ... they can
have fields and methods; the fields and methods of a class
are called "static".«

(A class in those languages resembles some features of objects
and therefore is like a kind of a singleton object with static
lifetime. But if you call a class an »object« in Java or C++,
the language experts will complain, because a class is not an
object in those languages when one adheres to the
specification of those languages.)

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

> This question refers to languages like C++ and Java, where
> both objects and classes might have fields and methods (in
> C++: »functions«).
>
> How is an entity called that can have fields and methods,
> when I do not care whether it is a class or an object?
>
> A noun is wanted that can be placed into the sentence:
>
> »Objects and classes both are ... . So as any ... they can
> have fields and methods; the fields and methods of a class
> are called "static".«

I'm not sure that any noun would make sense in the context provided.
Static member-functions/variables are no different in kind from normal
functions/variables, only their scope may be different (if they are made
private or protected.)

Responding to Ram...

> This question refers to languages like C++ and Java, where
> both objects and classes might have fields and methods (in
> C++: »functions«).
>
> How is an entity called that can have fields and methods,
> when I do not care whether it is a class or an object?

I don't think you can because classes and objects are not the same things.

Only objects abstract problem space entities. A class is simply an
identifiable set of objects. In an OO context the set itself can have
knowledge and behavior responsibilities, but those responsibilities are
quite limited to manipulations on the set of objects (e.g., Find). IOW,
the "entity" abstracted by a class is always restricted to being a set.
As a result class responsibilities are quite different things than
object responsibilities.

That's why the OOPLs distinguish them via a qualifier like "static" and
the access syntax is usually special (e.g., one is required to use
<class name>::<property name> to access class properties). Therefore one
is expected to know what the context is when accessing a class property
or an object property.

In particular, note that you must always have a particular object
reference in hand, including an implied 'this', to access object
properties and that reference is obtained via relationship navigation
(or the object is an embedded implementation element). But to access
class properties all you need is class identity.



--
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.

H. S. Lahman
hsl@pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions
http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
"Model-Based Translation: The Next Step in Agile Development". Email
info@pathfindermda.com for your copy.
Pathfinder is hiring:
http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php.
(888)OOA-PATH

"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> writes:
>I'm not sure that any noun would make sense in the context provided.
>Static member-functions/variables are no different in kind from normal
>functions/variables, only their scope may be different (if they are made
>private or protected.)

I now have two ideas:

When one wants to test a class or an object, one writes a
»test client«. So the class or object must be the counterpart
of a client: It is a /service/.

One also might say, that both classes and objects can receive
»messages«, so they both are /receivers/.

(I am aware, that »service« also has other meanings, as in
»SOA« or »web service«, but this might be resolved by context.)

"Stefan Ram" <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:service-20080903184148@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de...

> When one wants to test a class or an object, one writes a
> »test client«. So the class or object must be the counterpart
> of a client: It is a /service/.

When one implements a component C, C is a *service provider* .
When one wants to test C, the test infrastructure T that performs
said tests is a *service user* .


Regards,
Steven Perryman

"S Perryman" <a@a.net> writes:
>When one implements a component C, C is a *service provider* .
>When one wants to test C, the test infrastructure T that performs
>said tests is a *service user* .

The meaning of »service« you refer to seems to be:

»1 the action or process of serving.«

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/service

But the meaning I referred to also is given:

»5 a system supplying a public need such as
transport, or utilities such as water.«

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/service

(In German, there is the same dichotomy:
»Dienst« and »Dienstleister«.)

"Stefan Ram" <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:service-20080904171502@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de...

> "S Perryman" <a@a.net> writes:

>>When one implements a component C, C is a *service provider* .
>>When one wants to test C, the test infrastructure T that performs
>>said tests is a *service user* .

> The meaning of »service« you refer to seems to be:

> »1 the action or process of serving.«

> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/service

> But the meaning I referred to also is given:

> »5 a system supplying a public need such as
> transport, or utilities such as water.«

The meaning I want to convey is :

provides 1..*
ServiceProvider ----------------- Service


So C is an instance of ServiceProvider.


Regards,
Steven Perryman