Fwd: [webbeans-dev] Terminology

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

Hi Pete;

So far, we have used WebBeans in everywhere including documentation, blogs, presentation etc.

It's great to stick with WebBeans;

PS : Altough I registered with the webbeans-dev list, I am not able to send message here. I would like to post some important messages related with the specification that we have encountered while implementing the specification. Is there any way other?

Thanks a lot;

Gurkan Erdogdu
OpenWebBeans, http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/
gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com




________________________________
From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
To: webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:36:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: [webbeans-dev] Terminology





Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Rotatori <rotatori at sbcglobal.net>
Date: 3 December 2008 14:08:19 GMT
To: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Terminology
Reply-To: rotatori at sbcglobal.net

I think it should be kept as Web Bean. LIke you said, it sounds like a new model. It needs to be separate from an ejb bean name. 

--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:

From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Terminology
To: "Gavin King" <gavin at hibernate.org>
Cc: "webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org" <webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org>, "Java Community Process JSR #299 Expert List" <JSR-299-EG at jcp.org>, "Scott Ferguson" <ferg at caucho.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 6:40 AM


On 24 Nov 2008, at 13:06, Gavin King wrote:

> I've had a few discussions with a certain EE vendor who is concerned
> that the use of the "Bean" terminology sends
 the message that
Web
> Beans is a separate component model that competes with EJB. I don't
> necessarily agree, but I can see why some people might get that
> impression. Whatever: on this issue I think we should do whatever is
> necessary to make 299 palatable to all the vendors in the space.
>
> So we should search for alternative terminology. Here's my suggestion:
>
> Web Bean -> injectable type
> simple Web Bean -> injectable java class
> enterprise Web Bean -> session bean
> Web Bean instance -> injectable instance / instance of an injectable  
> type

This seems quite fragmented to me, I guess I would go for something  
like:

Web Bean -> injectable bean
Simple Web Bean -> injectable JavaBean
Enterprise Web Bean -> session bean
Web Bean instance -> injectable bean instance or just bean instance

This means we loose the
 proper noun (Web Bean) which I think is what  
makes it sounds more like a new model, but to me seems more consistent  
with Java terminology.

>
>
> WDYT? Does anyone have a better suggestion? Does anyone *not* want to
> make this change?
>
> -- 
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev

_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20081203/b1246653/attachment.html