2006/10/5, Satyam <Satyam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
I've seen you already had a good answer on the errors in the code so I won't go on that. As for OOP, the one design error you have is that you are asking for an action, not an object. You want to make SQL inserts, that is your purpose, and that is an action, which is solved by a statement, not by an object. There is no doer. Objects are what even your English teacher would call objects while describing a sentence. You are asking for a verb, you don't have a subject, you don't have an object. Of course you can wrap an action in a class, but that is bad design. Classes will usually have names representing nouns, methods will be verbs, properties adjectives, more or less, that's OOP for English teachers. Satyam
You're wrong, partially: an action can be an object and it's not necessarily a bad design, take for example function objects or the program and statements as objects in lisp-like languages. It's acceptable to make a class that works as an abstract representation of an sql query. This kind of classes are used very efficiently in object persistence libraries. What I agree with you is that it's not right that this class works as the insert action and not as a representation of the insert operation.
