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

[Ken Manheimer]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Jim Fulton wrote:

> 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.

FWIW, something registered on me last week that made "feature" more
palatable.  This may be obvious to everyone else, but i hadn't put
together how "new application functionality" is also stated as "new
feature" - along the lines of, for example: "linux ext3 filesystem
features a journalling capability".

In this vein, zope3 "feature" components graft new abilities - new
features - onto existing components.  So i see "feature" as being a good
word to describe their _effect_.

"Adapter" makes more sense to me for describing _how_ the things do what
they do (provided we disregard the conventional patterns usages).

All that said, i'm still inclined to prefer the term "adapter" - i suspect
it better fits the way i think about development problems.  However, i've
become more comfortable with "feature" once i put together the "spiffy
feature" connotation...

-- 
Ken
klm@zope.com