Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>> In writing the above sentence I noticed that I was avaoiding the use
>> of Service and ServiceDescriptor and I think the reason is that the
>> terms are not incorrect.
>>
>> The current ServiceDescriptor should be renamed to ServiceReference
>> - it is part of a type
>>
>> The current DependencyDescriptor should be renamed to DependencyReference
>> - it is part of a type
>>
>> The current Service class should be renamed to ServiceDescriptor
>> - it is indepedent of a type
>>
>> With the above changes things would start to make a little more sense.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>
> I agree. In my mind, that is what I was saying, but I was confusing
> Service with ServiceDescriptor. So yes, we should name the classes
> that reference externally defined things as References. We should
> also name classes that describe unique concepts as Descriptors. It
> is a natural way to think. It will help emmensely both in our
> conversations and for new users of the API.
I just thought of something. The DependencyDescriptor (in its current
form) represents information on how to find the Type that best matches
this dependency. For that reason, I think DependencyDescriptor is an
apt name.
However, I do think we need a TypeReference which is used for the
assembly mechanism to match the TypeDescriptor to the requested
ServiceReference.
Did I lose you?
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
