[I'm only vaguely keeping up with the clazz world, so bear with me if I'm saying crap here]
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > Naming is always a tricky issue, especially when we get to a fundamental > level such as this. > > Meta class names > ------------------ > Java: > Class, Field, Method > > Names proposed for [clazz]: > Clazz, Attribute, Operation Type, Attribute, Operation. Class is actually the wrong word here anyway as I assume Interfaces will be usable too. So 'Type' is really the superclass of Class and Interface. So maybe Class, Field and Method would be implementations of Type, Attribute and Operation :) Yeah.. I'm semantically juggling. An argument against is that Java uses the word Class in most places [some places it uses Type, ie Integer.TYPE] even when reflecting on interfaces. > Instance class names > --------------------- > Java: > Object, ., . > bean, property, method. > > Names proposed for [clazz]: > Bean, Property, Operation* Bean implies that only Beans are handled. I would fully expect the project to help me with things other than Beans, such as Listeners or just plain generic methods [ok, this might just be MethodUtils]. Property also implies Beans. But on reflection I think you meant that. I don't think beans call them methods, I think they might actually describe them as operations. I know JMX talks about operations. > MetaData name > ---------------- > Attribute* > MetaData NFC. Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
