Hi there, When I first stumbled into Cocoon 1 a few years back, I remember really liking the intuitive names of the core interfaces, Director and Actor. Given the confusion surrounding Component/ServiceManager, and the somewhat valid argument that Object != Component != Service, I think this might be something to consider.
The main purpose of Component/ServiceManager is to look up an object that matches the specified role (behavioral interface), so the idea would go well together with the Director-Actor naming scheme. Having intuitive and 'fun' names for the core interfaces could also make the framework more approachable (Composable???). Programming is serious enough as it is :) Personally I don't have any problems with the name ServiceManager. "Providing the service specified by the role" makes perfect sense to me, and I also like the term Serviceable. But as these are the names we'll be looking at for a long time, I thought everybody might want to have a say. The new classnames could be: org.apache.avalon.framework.role.Director org.apache.avalon.framework.role.DefaultDirector org.apache.avalon.framework.role.Actor org.apache.avalon.framework.role.ActorException These remind me of the practical names I've used in AOP (e.g. Group, Member), but some people might prefer technical terms. The idea could be extended with terms like agent, audition and studio (though not sure for what purpose). So, is this way too silly or actually something to consider? (Stabilizing ServiceManager is of course the first priority. The final name of the interface is a separate issue.) (: A ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
