> This may seem picky, but it is just an observation...
;)
> I was just reading through the avalon website and noticed that the term
> "Component Oriented Programming, COP" is introduced. Since this concept is
> normally called "Component Based Development, CBD", it might be better to
> adopt the accepted jargon rather than invent a new one.
>From my perspective, COP != CBD. EJB is CBD, but EJB is not COP.
"Component Based Development" really is just some marketing buzz
to indicate there are some fancy features available in a
product above and beyond...well, 'the usual'.
If you read the docs closely, you'll see JavaBeans (or COM+, or
whatever 'other' framework) as an example of development based on
'components' where the notion of 'component' is a lot less formalized
than it is in Avalon.
> It may be the case the COP is significantly different from CBD in
> avalon (as
> I haven't used it yet). If it isn't different, however, then from a
> marketing perspective it might be good to ride the CBD wave.
>From a marketing perspective, you're right ;)
>From the Open Source/Free Software perspective, we should promote
some sort of clarity, something the enterprise software design
community really needs in between the J2EE vs .Net battle...
> Just
> a thought.
same here; thanx anyways,
> Michael.
Leo
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Beauregard Wind River Systems, Inc.
> Senior Software Developer "How Smart Things Think!"
> 403.730.5734 #180, 6815-8th Street NE
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Calgary, AB T2E 7H7
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
