Hey Sergio,
There was so much discussion around these terms that it'll probably be
quite difficult to change them now.
Just as some insight into aspects that were considered:
- The term "consumes" implies depletion, which is unsound for some of the
interfaces
- Both consumers and providers must "implement" their end of the interface
for it to work, so "implements" meaning one end would create terminology
conflicts
- If we implement and consume interfaces, we don't have terms to refer to
the two endpoints in a tangible way; what is today "the plug" becomes "the
consuming endpoint of the interface" ("the consumer" won't cut, because
that's the snap itself)
- We need terms for the connection aspect; we might still "connect" the
consumer to the implementer, but the analogy is poor compared to connecting
plugs to slots.
- Plugs and slots are both short and have the same number of letters.
... and so on.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Sergio Schvezov <
sergio.schve...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>
> El 03/03/16 a las 16:15, Gustavo Niemeyer escribió:
> >
> > Okay, change in direction: I've discussed this with the team, and the
> > response was 100% positive on the term inversion, so we'll go ahead and
> > do it.
>
> Can I bikeshed for a bit?
>
> Instead of inverting the term I want to pitch `implements` and
> `consumes` for `interfaces`. There is no analogy (with physical devices
> that can confuse folk) and they are well understood terms, and fit well
> with `interfaces`.
>
>
>
> --
> snappy-devel mailing list
> snappy-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
>
>
--
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
--
snappy-devel mailing list
snappy-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
