This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

It would be interesting if somebody would add a small section discussing this. A Google search on this topic suggests that these are comparable solutions to the same problem of class relationships, except the composition allows for runtime hierarchy management. An example demonstrating this comparison would be interesting. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a short discussion about this now, but it is inadequate: it doesn't really explain what is different about subtyping, and it uses C as the example language, which has no subtyping. Rp (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Below the UML diagram, there is a piece of code showing composition: a car is composed of one carburetor. The car class however, contains a pointer to a carburetor. This is in contrast with the code examples in the point above, where is stated that composition uses an 'object within object' structure, whereas aggregation uses a reference/pointer to the object. In my opinion, if I have understood correctly, the car/carburetor example should be without pointer. it also shows what the sun is. --Patrickdepinguin 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your point is too language specific to easily fit into the article. Rp (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think User:Patrickdepinguin is quite right. Not using the pointer is the way to make a composite in C++, so why to show the questionable code, when there is a surely correct one? I grasped the idea of composite for myself just after I saw the proper code in C++ and I realized that you can't do a real composite in Java. Also, once you've used a pointer, you probably will have to deal with deallocation and that's straight against the concept of composite -- the component dies when the composite dies. --Jary (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The UML samples should be given multiplicity. On the owning (diamond) end of the association, for aggregation, the multiplicity, can be any multiplicity (except for 0..0), including 1, 0..1, 0..*, and *. For composition, the owning end can only be 1 or 0..1 --Mjchonoles 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Rjgodoy 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe that 0..1 is not correct for the owning end of a composition. Only 1 should be possible, because the contained objects can only exist if the owning object exists. (There can be zero owning objects, but only if there are zero owned objects, in which case the relation is meaningless.) BTW: The German wikipedia shares this POV. --史慧开 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think aggregation should get its own article and that composition should only mention the differences briefly...

The subject "Record (database)" redirects here, but this page is rather complicated. I recommend an article under "Record (database)", with a link to this page, rather than a redirect. D021317c 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Already redirected to Row. --Kubanczyk 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The final paragraph of introduction had been copied as "UML Notation" (near the end of the article). "Aggregation" section also has an UML diagram, so "UML Notation" must be introduced before. Rjgodoy 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assembler is definately the source of whole idea of "record". Could someone add assembler code as the first item in the timeline? Unfortunately I don't know any pre-COBOL assembler, such as S/360, but it would be perfectly logical here (I guess even zSeries would be better than nothing). --Kubanczyk 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, records in assembler are just a region of memory plus an implicit convention of using such region for storing certain kind of data (nibbles, BCD, bit-flags, etc). I mean there is no assembler notation for declaring "records" besides the directives for reserving memory. Rjgodoy 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, even if there would be no dedicated assembler notation (and I assure you that in many assemblers there is one), this programming concept (a record) originated around 1950s from the fact that assembly programmers liked to keep related variables close to each other in the memory, not scattered all over the address space. It may seem trivial now, but it's much more important observation than a syntax of some dinosaur languages (with all the respect to the reptiles). --Kubanczyk 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention that the relationship with composition is pretty weak, except to an assembly language programmer. Rp (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This section may benefit from improvement, or possibly an image (see User talk:Rjgodoy/1). Shinobu (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image talk:AggregationAndComposition.svg A user has requested that "Ducks" in AggregationAndComposition.svg be spelled "Duck" (singular). I think it makes sense, but I have no tools for editing svg. Rjgodoy (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right! Saw that this has been corrected in the image.--Sae1962 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The example is questionable, especially the way in which it is phrased.

Essential to composition is that the part has a necessary link with a whole, but a wheel can exist separately from a car. The example should therefore make it clear that the wheel being regarded as part of a car is not so much a property of wheels and cars as it is a property of a possible model of cars. I don't think the independent functioning of cars and wheels has much relevance, what matters is how wheels are identified within the system. Agree? Rp (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know nuthin and was reading Has-a and this article. The issue of the car is confusing. Your text makes more sense. The model is not a reality, it is a view of the reality. Same can be said of the human body. In a particular application, the body is a whole and may have an attribute of a good heart or bad one, but if we are swapping body parts in the application, then the heart is it's own object. Thanks for making it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.64.142 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

So in a DB and address may be an attribute, and though it may e changed, the old address would be lost, Where if it is modeled so that the address is in another table, then though the address can be changed in the Ship To fields, the old one still exists in the other table and may be selected and reported on. The ship to field would just use a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.64.142 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The equivocation of composites with "record types" is equally questionable. For instance, the recursive struct example of a binary tree is inconsistent with the definition of a composite relationship as one in which existence of the members depends on existence of the whole. More generally, this is true for values in a record/struct, but if these values are pointers to objects el;sewhere, not for those objects. This should be clarified. Rp (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In code sample you can see:

 create dept()

AFAIK, there is no create keyword in C++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanuan (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

On the first picture, the reresentation of aggregation and composition are in conflict with the text and code example. Aggregation should be an unfilled diamond, composition should be a filled diamond, but the symbols on the picture seems inverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.254.10.229 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You cannot construct R due to infinite recursion in __init__. Not sure what this example is trying to illustrate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.225.82 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article is confusing because it makes no difference with composition and composite object (or structures) that are different things. Composition involves objects declared separately and then composed and that is similar to multiple inheritance. Composite objects are just objects made of other objects. Macaldo (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good point, but "composition" usually refers to the latter, not the former! The former is an action that can be performed to create an object out of other objects; the latter is a type of relationship that can exist between objects. Rp (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

"composition" does not usually refer to composites: it fully depend on the context. Composition over inheritance for example is not about composites but really about composition. This article should acknowledge this ambiguity and give a neutral view instead of making an amalgame and contributing to a lot of confusions (I added a separate section to further detail the arguments and highlight some contradictions). --Christophe (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it an attempt to show how composition looked in 1984 for C++ for instance? I can't think of a more confusing example in modern C++ (look at the other examples in C++?). Is it the same for other languages? Niberto (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, this is terrible with fixed size arrays instead of modern vectors. I think this history section should be abridged. Wikipedia is not Rosettacode.org ! It could be interesting to keep a couple of examples to show that composition predates OOP, but a couple of representative examples would be more than sufficient. In this regard, the COBOL, and PL/1 examples could be kept. Then one OO example showing something else than a structure made of basic types could be interesting. For anyone interested in composition history in a specific language, a better place would be the article on the language itself, I think --Christophe (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article lacks of references when it claims that composition is conceptual and not related to the implementation. It therewith lacks of neutrality, taking a purely conceptual point of view, and disregarding OOP reality, which makes it somewhat inconsistent with the section on object composition in the Object-oriented programming article.

The article should therefore be revised to clarify the difference between:

• object composition viewed as an OOP technique (related to implementation): i.e. making an object by assembling several other objects. Interestingly, the C example and most of the timeline examples is exactly about this. (in UML, this is a simple association)
• object composition viewed as conceptual aggregation (abstract): i.e. the composite/component relationship (which in UML is indeed an aggregation or a composition whole/part relation), but wording in a way to avoid a confusion with the composite design pattern (recursive composition).

-> Was done, renaming "Detail" into "Programming technique" and "UML notation" into "UML modeling" --Christophe (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article contributes to some confusion, leading people to use aggregation in design models instead of simple associations, just because they intend to use object composition at implementation level, a phenomenon that James Rumbaugh, one of the UML founders use to call "modeling placebo".

-> Seems no longer necessary, since the simpler property and association are included in the UML section --Christophe (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The revision could also be the opportunity to make the second sentence less ambiguous ("related to but ....") and explain the semantic differences in composition using reference types and value types.

-> Was done (second sentence) and seems no longer necessary (last para of programming technique covers the topic indirectly) --Christophe (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lastly it could remove some contractions such as:

• "refers to the logical or conceptual structure of the information, not the implementation or physical data structure" vs the many examples that are only about implementation and physical data.
• "However, as an object composition, the positions are relevant", which contradicts the claimed conceptual nature of the composition
• the sequence and set explanation, which only apply to composition of multiple objects (one-to-many), and not to flat composition of object of different types (many one-to-one). By the way, the terminology of sequence and sets seems specific to the UML community and not generally used across all OOP communities.

--Christophe (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply