> Ola Berg wrote: > > Personally, I like either \"flow\" and \"use-flow\" or > \"director\" and \"direct\". On second thougt \"flow\" and > \"use-flow\" is what I like best. (Part of the problem is > that \"flow\" can be used both as a noun (the component) and > as a verb (the action). \"use-flow\" makes up for this.).
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > The 'actor/director' metaphore has been extensively used in > Avalon and I > don't want them to collide here. fair enough - but I think Ola is right that the director metaphor is more apt... > Also, what I don't find fitting in the actor/director metaphor is the > unbroken seemless continuation perception that 'flowing' gives. When > something flows, it's normally continously flowing or there > is a problem > (water, oil, eletric current, air) The flow layer is not continuous, but discrete, isn't that right? So the inaptness is with "flow". > A better alternative could be to use 'pipelines and valves', but this > collides with the use of 'valves' in Tomcat 4.x yes. "Director" is overloaded but perhaps a metaphor of "steering a course" would be be similar? <map:steer course="blah"/> or something > I know that 'calling a flow' is not really meaningful, in fact, > 'hand-over to the resource flow' would be a better description of the > action, but I'm not really worried by these things. The sitemap shows > that once people like a concept, they don't mind sticking to > a new name > or even more, replace the most used meaning of that word for the new > meaning. But for new users the terminology is more important. There are a lot of features in Cocoon! If a feature of Cocoon has an inapt name its real function may be effectively hidden from new users. Terminology that is based on an apt metaphor can be more easily learned and will cause less confusion over semantics in the long term. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
