Better, but the book still needs a dependency on your "book buyer" (let's call it "Retailer" for sanity) interface even though there are likely lots of things to do with a book besides buy it, and those applications shouldn't have to care about the details of book buying. For every verb, the book field needs at least one new field to support that verb (e.g., the `Book.retailer` field to support the `buyBook()` method), even though each thing you might want to do with a book involves at most a few of those fields.
Moreover, inevitably someone downstream from the author of the Book class will have a use case for dealing with books that the author hasn't accounted for, so they have to extend the book class for their own use case, tacking ever more fields onto that book even though their use case only cares about a few of the fields.
Additionally, some of the things you might want to do with a book might also involve some other plain-old-data-structure--how do you determine which plain-old-data should host the method? Why is it `Book.doThingWithCar(Car c);` and not `Car.doThingWithBook(Book b);` or simply a static method `doThing(Car c, Book b);`?
Further still, why create a Book.buy() method that's just going to delegate to `Retailer.buyBook(this)` anyway? If the advantage is that you don't have to explicitly pass the `retailer` around, that's fine enough but there are ways to do that without baking retailer details into every book instance (e.g., a closure: `buyBook = function() { retailer.buyBook(book) }` or if you're a glutton for punishment, you can create a class weds a book and a retailer together:
class BuyBookOperation {
private Retailer _retailer;
private Book _book;
public BuyBookOperation(Retailer retailer, Book book) {
this._retailer = retailer;
this._book = book;
}
public do() { this._retailer.buyBook(this._book); }
}
Further, you might want to buy a book from
many retailers--why should you have to do `book.setRetailer(amazonClient); book.buyBook(); book.setRetailer(barnesAndNobleClient); book.buyBook();`? Why not simply `amazonClient.buyBook(book); barnesAndNobleClient.buyBook(book);`? Even if you abstract away the mutation by creating a `Book.buyFromRetailer(Retailer r)` method that sets the retailer and then calls Book.buy(), you now have a potential race condition in parallel code and you still have no advantage over retailer.buyBook(book).
Lastly, if at some point you do need to buy books in batch, how do you support that? Does each book class also need a reference to every List<Book> that references it so it can do book.buyInBatch()? Do you make a book.buyInBatch(List<Book> otherBooks) method? Do you just eat the performance hit and make individual calls to book.buy() even though the Retailer interface has a buyManyBooks(List<Book> books) method that could buy all books in a single HTTP request? What advantages do these approaches have over `retailer.buyManyBooks(books)`?
So this "plain old data needs to depend on everything that might be necessary for any activity involving a book" pattern has no obvious benefits, but it creates a lot of unnecessary coupling, creates a lot of awkward interface decisions when there are other objects involved in an action (including efficiently dealing with collections of your plain old data structure), and it probably pushes you into mutation unnecessarily which makes it a lot more difficult to parallelize your code.
This pattern seems to be a pretty transparent anti-pattern to me, and if it's "inherently OOP" then OOP is problematic.