Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
Uwe Oestermeier wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: I ended up creating a first class User object too. See also my note about being able to access these in content space. The same holds for my project. Shouldn't they be part of the framework if so many applications need them? I smell a proposal :). ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I smell a proposal :). I cannot promise to write this proposal in the next two weeks, but I will try to write one before the NeckarSprint (6-9. Oct) takes place. The implementation of user objects would be a manageable sprint task. -- Uwe ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
On 9/12/05, Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: ... So, I would like to give principal a better name. How about participant? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request). Participant should also be pretty easy to translate: it's a common word, especially outside IT vocubulary, which means chances are good to find appropriate native translations for it. (Note that the point of finding translations for technical terms is not only for the sake of a translated Zope 3 UI. It's more about how people understand technical terms. I think most Zope 3 developers aren't native English speakers and they do not necessarily think in English. So, good words that have good native translations help the understanding process on their end. That is not only important for _learning_ a concept, but also for _explaining_ it. As a book author, I know what I'm talking about... :)) Hope to hear some comments, Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? It might be worth considering that the term user has a mostly negative connotation in English (at least in the USA). IMO anyways, I don't have any data to back this up. -Tom ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
Tom von Schwerdtner wrote: It might be worth considering that the term user has a mostly negative connotation in English (at least in the USA). In tech circles, user is completely neutral and safe. However, in slang, sometimes drug user is shortened to user. Shane ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
On 9/12/05, Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Because it can be things that are not users. That said, User may still be the best name. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
Or maybe 'Actor' - widely accepted term in UML speak. Regards Alen On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:54 +0200, Tonico Strasser wrote: Here the obligatory dumb question: why is it not called user? Tonico ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Rename principal to participant
Should correct myself as actor probably not a good idea; in uml it seems to represent a role rather then a principal/user On 9/13/05, Alen Stanisic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe 'Actor' - widely accepted term in UML speak. Regards Alen ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
