Nicola, >>> block: deprecated alias for component >>> >> Agree that deprecation as a term is possible. It was not the only >> thing called component though in the context of the Avalon project. > > > Too bad, it should be.
Agree. Unfortunately (for terminology) ECM used blockless components. >> -1 ... it is a new term. >> >> All others OK. > > > "It is a new term" is not enough for a -1, nor even an explanation. > Can you please supply the alternative? I refer you to my previous posting :- > My preference FWIW, is to use terms from those already > marketted and not to add any more. > So +1 to choices from Role, Interface, Service, Implements, > Provides & Requires (used in manifests) > And -1 to Facets, Provider, ServiceProvider, Cunsumer, > ServiceUser, ServiceClient, WorkInterface, Exports, > Depends, needs, uses, receptacle. > If we have to obsolete some from the currently used set, then so be it. > We're now better at referring to Avalon as Avalon-Framework or > Avalon-Phoenix etc, I think the best course of action is term > reduction, a terminology page and some coaching on use. I hope that explains my position. As for +1 & -1 voting, I fully expect to get overruled by many persons. I am happy to go with a majority vote, I felt I should make my "term reduction" argument for the then second time - now the third time thanks - cheers! - Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
