[Zope3-dev] Not really bringing the name game to a close, for now, are we?

[Lennart Regebro]

From: "Jeffrey P Shell" <jeffrey@cuemedia.com>
> There are GoF patterns besides Adapter that might bear looking at.
>  From the inside cover under "Structural Patterns" (with page
> numbers for those reading along at work):

Good idea to look there, why didn't I think of that?
I don't think we should be too strict about staying with the GoF vocabulary,
their names doens't always make the most sense either, but in any case, I
still think 'adapter' is a bit of a stretch. It's not neccessarily
*adapting* anything. Features do provide functionalty, adapters get the
functionality from somewhere else, right?

The decorator seems to be a good match pattern-wise. That doesn't mean we
should call them decorators, because I don't think it's a fairly obvious
name. It more sounds like it means skins or something...

Maybe it should be called something totally abstract, so that at least
nobody can misunderstand it. :-)
A "reola" component. :-)

Sure, the naming issue is a psuedo issue. The important thing is that the
component structure is a viable one.
But still, the later you rename, the harder the work. :-)

And sure, I'm not any kind of guru, but I have done a fair bit of
object-oriented programming, I have been using Zope for two years, and I
have read the GoF patterns book, so I'm not a complete rookie either. And
when both I, probably a pretty average guy, and several people who definite
object gurus, get confused by the naming, then things need better names.

You who ARE gurus should keep this in mind, and toss around names, and when
you have an idea, bring it up! I think I'm getting some kind of hang of the
component structure, and I like it (except that I don't like the split of
services and utilities). But the names could be better...