[webbeans-dev] RE: New name

[Michael Keith]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Ferguson [mailto:ferg at caucho.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:49 AM
> To: Michael Keith
> Cc: Gavin King; Java Community Process JSR #299 Expert List; 
> Matt Drees;
> Jim Knutson; WebBeans
> Subject: Re: New name
> 
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Michael Keith wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't understand why literal names are more meaningless than  
> > abstract ones.
> 
> They tend to be overused because we have so many concepts to 
> name, and  
> each overloading of the name  makes it less meaningful.
> 
> For example, "context" is one of the most overused terms on 
> the server  
> side: transaction context, security context, class loader context,  
> JNDI naming context, language context (scope), etc.  Calling 
> something

"context" means the same thing in all of these terms, i.e. the current state
or environment that surrounds the given thing, it's just that each of these are 
referring to different contextual *things*. But maybe your point was that a context 
can be used for so many things that just saying context is not descriptive enough?
Maybe that's true, and maybe that is what we might want to imply by this kind
of context, that it can be a context for many things, and I think it is.

It doesn't really matter to me what the name actually is, as long as it 
describes the services, or if not the services then some other randomly chosen 
title, just not the objects.

> a "contextual service" doesn't distinguish it from any other kind of  
> service, because "context" has a low intrinsic information content.
> 
> > For example, I find something like Contextual Services more  
> > meaningful than "web beans".
> 
> Since "web beans" isn't a great name either, that's not fair. :-)

Heh. I didn't do that on purpose :)

> 
> > "weave" has kind of already been claimed by the AOP community to  
> > mean byte-enhance. I
> > expect that by and large that would be the connotation with 
> anything  
> > named after it.
> 
> The spec does have a bunch of byte-code enhancement and AOP stuff. :-)

:-)

> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Scott Ferguson [mailto:ferg at caucho.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:06 PM
> >> To: Michael Keith
> >> Cc: Gavin King; Java Community Process JSR #299 Expert List;
> >> Matt Drees;
> >> Jim Knutson; WebBeans
> >> Subject: Re: New name
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Michael Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> One of the problems with the existing name is that it names a new
> >>> type of object,
> >>> which gives the impression that a new "component" is being
> >> introduced.
> >>> Rather, this spec is supposed to be introducing a new set of
> >>> container services, so
> >>> a better direction might be to name it around the sevices
> >> that it is
> >>> offering and
> >>> not the objects that are the beneficiaries of those services (and
> >>> are supposed
> >>> to already exist outside of this spec).
> >>
> >> Excellent point.
> >>
> >>> A few ideas, just to illustrate what I mean, and start the naming
> >>> juices flowing
> >>> in this direction:
> >>>
> >>> Context and Injection Services
> >>> Container Object Services
> >>> Container Contexts and Injection
> >>> Contextual Support for Container Objects
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I like the literal names.  Since the problem to
> >> be solved
> >> is so general, literal names are also abstract and somewhat
> >> meaningless.  For example, "container", "context" and "object" are
> >> used everywhere, so they don't help explain how this spec is
> >> different.
> >>
> >>> The other option is to give it an arbitrary name and let the
> >>> contents speak
> >>> for itself (a la "Swing", and other similar randomly-named
> >>> technologies).
> >>> "Fred" has a nice ring to it ;-)
> >>
> >> I like "weaver" (or "weave", etc.)  It fits the problem because a
> >> weaver pulls together materials (components/wool) using a
> >> pattern/plan
> >> (config or rug pattern), creating the final completed product
> >> (application or rug).  And it has a vivid image, so you 
> can remember
> >> it and distinguish it from other specs.  The "weaver pattern" could
> >> even be a replacement for "IoC/DI", a name no one really likes.
> >>
> >> -- Scott
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>