> 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]
