[stiff]

You have to think a bit more about what OO really is about. How would properties of your solution differ if you instead of classes split all the code into many very small global methods? The essence of OO is objects freely passing messages between themselves, if you fix all the message routing and put it in a central place you are not doing OO anymore, you loose the most fundamental properties, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dispatch

You also don't have encapsulation anymore, since to be able to perform the majority of the work in the services, the services have to operate directly on data owned by other objects.

How can you combine the policies in ways other than a simple logical AND? How do you combine services?

Others have also already pointed out other issues.

Please don't be offended by the above. Software engineering is unfortunately a field where some valuable content is buried underneath loads of BS, since it is so easy to "philosophize" about it even with just basic programming experience and this leads other people learning the field to easy misconceptions. I do not want to discredit the work you put into this and it might be that in some form something valuable will come from some of the ideas. It is an interesting problem to work on and for me it was an interesting solution to think about, I just don't think you are there yet.

[jamesgolick]

> You have to think a bit more about what OO really is about.

If you want to have a respectful debate, I'm completely game. If you'd prefer to continue with your incredibly condescending tone, then I'll bow out here.

[stiff]

Well, maybe I got carried away a bit with the tone in general in the last paragraphs of both comments, but I think I substantiated the particular sentence you cited quite a bit. On the other hand, I also took half an hour to clearly explain to you why this is somewhat misguided and tried hard to be polite, while someone below just said "this is fucking ridiculous". It's hard, at least for me, to give constructive criticism, without the other person being offeneded.

[evolve2k]

I find utilising the Feedback Sandwich Technique, with some authentic positive encouragement, usually works well.

I apply it mostly when I'm writing something and am getting the feeling that it might not come across so well.

http://www.rightattitudes.com/2008/02/20/sandwich-feedback-t... (from a quick Google)

[ryeguy]

You need to grow thicker skin, that first sentence was in no way condescending and gives you no reason to just ignore the rest of his comment.

[telemachos]

No. It may be unintentional, but the tone of stiff's comments is highly condescending.

Exhibit A: Whatever you think about James's choices in this library, he has clearly thought a lot about OOP. It's just silly to start a comment with "You have to think a bit more about what OO really is about."

[phillmv]

>You need to grow thicker skin

I'm beginning to be convinced this is almost never an appropriate thing to say.