<html><body>
<p><tt>I guess I still have a worry about this. If I were to take "contextual</tt><br>
<tt>bean" as a term without the context of this discussion, I would initially</tt><br>
<tt>assume that this is a different kind of bean. As I understand it so far,</tt><br>
<tt>that is not the case. </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Since this is intended to be integrated with the Java EE platform, can't</tt><br>
<tt>we just use the platform term "EJB" or enterprise bean and let the EJB</tt><br>
<tt>spec. scope the possibilities of what that means?</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>If we can't do that, can we just make the term simply component or bean?</tt><br>
<tt><br>
Thanks,<br>
Jim Knutson<br>
WebSphere J2EE Architect</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>gavin.king@gmail.com wrote on 12/30/2008 03:45:51 PM:<br>
<br>
> OK, so does anyone in the group *object* to the term "contextual bean"<br>
> for what is currently called a "web bean"?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Matt Drees <matt.drees@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> On 21 Dec 2008, at 07:32, Gavin King wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Oracle have proposed that we remove the term "Web Bean" from the<br>
> >>> specification. I'm therefore searching for alternative terminology.<br>
> >>> Please let me know your opinions and suggestions.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Here's one possibility:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Web Bean -> injectable type<br>
> >>> simple Web Bean -> injectable Java class<br>
> >>> enterprise Web Bean -> injectable EJB<br>
> >><br>
> >> I really don't like this.<br>
> ><br>
> > Me either.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >>> Or:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Web Bean -> contextual type<br>
> >>> simple Web Bean -> contextual Java class<br>
> >>> enterprise Web Bean -> contextual EJB<br>
> >><br>
> >> This is better.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I agree.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> As I said before, I prefer bean to type/class/EJB<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Yeah, "bean" seems less overloaded than the other terms here.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> Web Bean -> contextual bean<br>
> >> simple Web Bean -> contextual JavaBean<br>
> >> enterprise Web Bean -> contextual EJB<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On the whole, though, I think Web Beans is a better name. It has a lot of<br>
> > recognition already. It seems less boring than the alternatives mentioned<br>
> > here.<br>
> > I also feel like "simple web bean" will be easier for me to say asI talk to<br>
> > my coworkers about them; "contextual Java class" doesn't come out as nice.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I understand that the "web" part of web beans is non optimal, but I haven't<br>
> > seen anything that I believe is better. If I think of something I'll speak<br>
> > up.<br>
> ><br>
> > -Matt Drees<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Gavin King<br>
> gavin.king@gmail.com<br>
> <a href="http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin">http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin</a><br>
> <a href="http://hibernate.org">http://hibernate.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://seamframework.org">http://seamframework.org</a><br>
</tt></body></html>