Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
Chris Withers wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > >>> - BUT, given that it's a big change and likely invalidates a lot of dead >>> tree material, I'd suggest we just stick with principal and be done with >>> it ;-) >> >> >> If that last point were the doctrine by which previous refactorings had >> to be undertaken (e.g. the refactoring of the Component Architecture), >> we would still be stuck with services and other antiquated concepts. > > > I'd hardly call them antiquated. I agree that early on in a project, the > freedom to change and refactor freely is great, but at some point, when > you want lots of people to adopt your project, you need to slow down and > stop making wide ranging changes unless you really really need to. This attitude has left us with Zope 2 where it is. I really hope that we Zope 3 developers won't ever be too tired to tackle even serious refactorings -- if they work out for the better, of course. However, when I look at recent refactorings, and even just the fact that deprecating things is easy and much less pain that it was before, thanks to Stephan's zope.deprecation, I'm pretty confident and needn't worry. > In this case, it's a largely cosmetic change that doesn't do anything > except invalidate a whole load of documentation ;-) You're right about this being largely cosmetic. But I disagree that this means it's not worth to "invalidate" lots of docs. The reason I proposed the name change was for the sake of docs. So, changing the docs was actually one of my intentions :). Anyway, I think the discussion has reached a point where I can safely withdraw my proposal. Thanks to everyone for their valuable comments. I must say I feel better about "principal" now. Not the word itself, but the way we use it and the fact that it's used by others. Proper translations remain to be found... Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: - BUT, given that it's a big change and likely invalidates a lot of dead tree material, I'd suggest we just stick with principal and be done with it ;-) If that last point were the doctrine by which previous refactorings had to be undertaken (e.g. the refactoring of the Component Architecture), we would still be stuck with services and other antiquated concepts. I'd hardly call them antiquated. I agree that early on in a project, the freedom to change and refactor freely is great, but at some point, when you want lots of people to adopt your project, you need to slow down and stop making wide ranging changes unless you really really need to. In this case, it's a largely cosmetic change that doesn't do anything except invalidate a whole load of documentation ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I disagree (and so do others it seems). Principal has been a standard and very common term in the world of security for well over a decade and is now also used in popular frameworks such as .NET and J2EE. Did you actually bother reading the rest of my reply where I stated we should stick with principal?! Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
Previously Chris Withers wrote: > After reading the majority of that thread, I think I feel the same way > as everone else: > > - principal is better than participant > > - user is better then principal I disagree (and so do others it seems). Principal has been a standard and very common term in the world of security for well over a decade and is now also used in popular frameworks such as .NET and J2EE. user is definitely worse since a principal can be many things that are not users in any sense of the word. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
Chris Withers wrote: > After reading the majority of that thread, I think I feel the same way > as everone else: > > - principal is better than participant > > - user is better then principal > > - BUT, given that it's a big change and likely invalidates a lot of dead > tree material, I'd suggest we just stick with principal and be done with > it ;-) If that last point were the doctrine by which previous refactorings had to be undertaken (e.g. the refactoring of the Component Architecture), we would still be stuck with services and other antiquated concepts. Neither Stephan nor I had a problem with deprecating or even removing well-documented concepts and neither of us seems to regret that. Other than that, I share your observations regarding the names, only the reason why we shouldn't switch to "user" is a different one: it might still be valuable to distinguish the person from the object. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Rename "principal" to "participant", my 2p ;-)
After reading the majority of that thread, I think I feel the same way as everone else: - principal is better than participant - user is better then principal - BUT, given that it's a big change and likely invalidates a lot of dead tree material, I'd suggest we just stick with principal and be done with it ;-) (lazy is often better, and much less confusing for newbies ;) ) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
