[webbeans-dev] Re: Terminology

[Michael Keith]

Again, allow me to clarify some of the issues by starting a discussion that is at the heart 
of this concern. Hopefully this will help people understand more about where we are coming from.

One of the biggest concerns around JSR 299 is that it promotes yet another component 
model in addition to EJB. This is *highly* undesirable, in fact it is a very dangerous 
thing for the platform. A lot of time and effort has been put into making EJB a 
competitive component model so that it can stack up to any other component model 
out there. If EJB has not reached this state then it is a failing of EJB, and means
that EJB should be fixed and/or modified so that it provides whatever kind of component
that people need or want. It does not warrant adding yet another way to develop business 
logic components and then adding the functionality that may already be, or should be, in 
the existing component model.

So, with this issue as a backdrop, I think there are two things that this spec can do to 
ensure that the platform is not fractured or schitzophrenic in certain areas:

1) We have to ensure that this spec makes use of existing component models, modifying the 
existing component model when necessary, and adding new features to the model when required.
Note that this correlates exactly with what this spec originally had as its mandate -- to 
integrate existing JSF and EJB components.

2) Ensure that people understand what this spec is, what it is offering, and what problems it
is trying to solve. One thing that has become abundantly clear is that when people read the 
term "web beans" they think of it as being a second/third type of enterprise bean. This is only
natural, but can be easily avoided by changing the name to be more in line with the value
that this spec has, and the domain in which it resides.

So, we are really talking about more than just a name change, but a name change is certainly
a good start!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin King [mailto:gavin at hibernate.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:32 AM
> To: Java Community Process JSR #299 Expert List; WebBeans; Matt Drees;
> Scott Ferguson; Michael Keith; Jim Knutson
> Subject: Terminology
> 
> 
> Oracle have proposed that we remove the term "Web Bean" from the
> specification. I'm therefore searching for alternative terminology.
> Please let me know your opinions and suggestions.
> 
> Here's one possibility:
> 
> Web Bean -> injectable type
> simple Web Bean -> injectable Java class
> enterprise Web Bean -> injectable EJB
> 
> Or:
> 
> Web Bean -> contextual type
> simple Web Bean -> contextual Java class
> enterprise Web Bean -> contextual EJB
> 
> Note that "contextual type" already means something in the current
> spec, but that thing should be easy enough to rename.
> 
> -- 
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org
>