[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Cool stuff!

[Jim Fulton]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > P.S.  Speaking of naming, I still dislike "feature" as a term for interface
> > implementations; various suggestions available on the "Feature" page of the
> > ComponentArchitecture Wiki.  :)
> 
> I agree. I still much prefer 'adaptor' and I don't buy the
> 'adaptors sound too much like a light-weight layer' argument.
> 
> If people agree, I will go through the Zope 3 CVS and change all references
> from Feature to Adaptor. :)

Before you start changing anything, we need a little more discussion. :)

The term "adapter" has a pretty specific meaning in the "patterns" world 
that is more specific than "feature". This caused some confusion early on.
If we aren't worried about the inconsistency with the patterns usage, 
then "adapter" is fine with me.  Features will be used both for
translating one interface to another (the patterns usage) and for
adding new application functionality.

I'm not sure how best to resolve this. I'm certainly open to a 
different term, but I wouldn't want this change to be made based 
on a few "+1"s.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@zope.com       Python Powered!        
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org  
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org