[webbeans-dev] RE: New name

[Michael Keith]

I don't understand why literal names are more meaningless than abstract ones. 
For example, I find something like Contextual Services more meaningful than "web beans".

"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.

> -----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
> 
>