cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [C2] Package names
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:06:43 GMT
Mark Washeim wrote:
> 
> on 5/7/00 7:22 pm, Stefano Mazzocchi at stefano@apache.org wrote:
> 
> > Mark Washeim wrote:
> >
> >>> generator -> generate
> >>> transformer -> transform
> >>> serializer -> serialize
> >>> matcher -> matching
> >>> chooser -> choosing
> >>
> >> matcher -> match
> >> chooser -> chose
> >
> > ???
> >
> > verb   = generate
> > action = generation
> > actor  = generator
> 
> verb = generate
> action = generate

??? 

> actor = generator
> 
> generation is a noun, also. though, 'the act of generation' can be
> misleading...

"generation" takes place when a "generator" "generates".

Is this misleading? is this wrong? (in italian, it's not)
 
> > then
> >
> > verb   = match
> > action = matching
> > actor  = matcher
> 
> verb = match
> action = match
> actor = ??? (to have fun with it, match-maker ;) )
> 
> the problem is that you're using the adjective (something is matching is a
> quality of the thing, not an act of the thing) . . .

Ok, I trust you there.... there is no direct italian translation for the
word "match".
 
> verb = chose
> action = chose
> actor = ??? choser (loser!)
> 
> trouble.
> 
> verb = select
> action = select
> actor = selector
> ( selector = a switch that is used to select among alternatives )

I can live with "selection/select/selector" but we what about "match"
and friends?
 
> > Is this wrong? Gosh, I wish I knew more english...
> >
> 
> Check out the princeton university word net browser. Very cool reference
> tool for finding all of the variants of meaning (from Hyponyms to Hypernyms,
> to synonyms and coordinate terms) . . .

Where is it?
 
> >> sorry to be picky, I'm also in a hurry (eurofootball goes live with cocoon
> >> tonight :) )
> >
> > Uh, great.
> >
> >>> Is it ok so far? Do you guys have any more suggestion?
> >>>
> >>> 2) assuming the above is final, we have to place all these into
> >>> packages. To reduce verbosity the package should not be verbose.
> >>>
> >>> org.apache.cocoon.[package].[noun]
> >>>
> >>> where
> >>>
> >>> [noun] must be the name of the interface component
> >>>
> >>> so we have to decide what to use for [package]
> >>>
> >>> Proposals are
> >>>
> >>> a) [noun] singular
> >>> b) [noun] plural
> >>> c) [action] derived from [noun]
> >>>
> >>> i.e.
> >>>
> >>> a) org.apache.cocoon.generator.Generator
> >>> b) org.apache.cocoon.generators.Generator
> >>> c) org.apache.cocoon.generation.Generator
> >>
> >> org.apache.cocoon.generator.PrDocumentGenerator
> >> org.apache.cocoon.generator.HrDocumentGenerator
> >>
> >> That's my preference.
> >
> > so this is a), right?
> 
> Yeah, sorry, it's a.
> 
> > God, we have at least one vote for all three choices...
> >
> > I still vote for c)
> 
> The package denotes a 'class' of components which relate to generation, so
> Ok.

Yes, that's the idea.
 
> +1 for
> 
> org.apache.cocoon.generation.Generator
> (I still contend that generator's are for making electricity, not documents)
> org.apache.cocoon.transformation.Transformer
> (god forgive me, that's an electrical device for transforming voltage)

All right, here we go again.

The good terms are "producer/consumer", but these are more general since
a Transformer is a device that is both producing and consuming
something... in fact, it's transforming it.

A "transformer" is a devide that transforms something into something
else. In fact, an electrical transformer can be said "implementing" this
"transformation" design pattern.

Same could be said for generation.

also keep in mind my hardware background :)
 
> org.apache.cocoon.serialization.Serializer
> (ok, this is just awful, serialization meaning publication in volumes aswith
> a magazine (and why I think that sun went with Writers even for streams of
> bytes, though I'm probably wrong)).

This is a general term used in many W3C specs, and I think it's very
consistent once you get used to it.
 
> That keeps them consistent, anyway...

Yes, that's the reason for such discussion anyway.
 
> (now you're really going to hate me :) )

Nah
 
> org.apache.cocoon.selection.Selector (in place of choosing)
> 
> variants match might be:
> org.apache.cocoon.check.Checker
> org.apache.cocoon.fit.Fitter

I used "choose" because XSLT does, but XSLT has only one (hardcoded)
"chooser" which is the XPathChooser.
 
> in both the latter cases, these are synonyms for match which also happen to
> have actors which precisely describe the action. Although, in the case of
> the fitter (clothes and pipes, usually, it's a bit strained).

So you propose

 chooser -> selector
 matcher -> checker

is this right?

(I still like <map:match pattern=""> much more)

> A checker is one who checks the correctness of something and a check may
> (among other things) be a match.

Yes, but a match is always (and only) a match and this is what we are
looking for.
 
> Ok, I'm sorry to drag this out . . . it's just my writer background creeping
> out of the sub-conscious . . .

No, no, naming is very important.
 
> It's just a case of correctness which can be dispensed with so if everyone
> votes for me to shut up, please go ahead, I don't mind . . .

No, want to hear everyone's opinion on this...
 
> I'm only expressing my opinion....

That's the point... otherwise I'd be coding C2 in my basement alone :)

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------



Mime
View raw message