Update — I think architects and “savvy communicators” often practice vague OO-speak to perfection. We may need to practice it.
In OO discussions, we often say “Look here, objectA will query objectB”, by calling getTimestamp(). This is a typical example of vague/misleading OO-speak. It’s as vague as a presidential candidate promising to “reduce deficit in 4 years” without any concrete details. Note non-OO programmers don’t develope such vague communication habits.
Here are some of the fundamental amgiuities.
* A must get a handle on B before calling B’s non-static methods. The way to get the correct B instance is often non-trivial. That sentence invariably glosses over such details.
* It’s a method in A — methodA1 — not just “object A”, that queries B. This is a crucial point glossed over in that sentence.
** The original sentence implies A is some kind of active object that can initiate actions, but actually method A is called by another method, so the real initiator is often an external entity such as a GUI user, an incoming message, the main thread of a batch job, or a web-service/EJB request. ObjectA is NOT the initiator entity.
* Return value of the query is either saved in A or used on the fly in the methodA1. The original sentence doesn’t mention it and implies objectA has some kind of intelligence/bizlogic about how to use the return value. In some cases indeed the method in objectA has that “intelligence”, but it should not be glossed over. More often, methodA1 simplify passes the query result to the upstairs method above methodA1. The upstairs method may “belong” to a different object. All the details are glossed over in the original sentence.
Here’s an even more vague phrase – “A calling B”. This glosses over the essentials of the arguments and where they come from.