> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:27 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: terms: shared scope variables vs. persistent scope variables? > > On 6/20/05, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I had a horrible feeling that the mis-use of "persistent" was > > still in the current docs. I'll log a bug to get it changed. > > Bug 60359. > > Here's a good definition of persistence: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence
Just playing a little devil's advocate here... While, yes, this is the computer science term and, when used in that explicit context the common usage in CF is wrong, do the CF Docs present themselves in the context of computer science? More importantly should they? The docs, it seems to me, purposefully present a simplistic, informal voice. They are aimed at the average CF user (who, I'll stake, is not generally a computer science geek). The idea that "values persist across multiple requests" is perfectly clear, understandable English. "Persist" isn't a label for a broader concept here -it's a perfectly appropriate word to describe the behavior. The label "persist" here (as in "persistent scopes") is correct insofar as its usage (again, it may be wrong from a technical perspective, but it is proper English and gets the point across). Also, from what I see in the docs, it's used consistently used in specific context. There are definitely many computer science terms which can mean different things depending on context, why can't this be another? I guess in the end I'm just having trouble with coming up with another simple term that can both describe and label these scopes. For example you could correctly say "values exist across multiple requests" but you can't reasonably call those scopes "Existent variables". So far I think that "Shared" works best... but isn't nearly as descriptive to the behavior involved (I think) as "persistent". Forgetting computer science (for just a minute) they are, in fact persistent across requests (to use the word "persistent" you really have to define your boundaries). I agree that, in general, using terms in agreed-upon ways is always better than not... but it's also clear that the term "persistent" has been very successful for many years in describing this potentially confusing behavior. So, in general, should the docs focus more on describing the behavior or on maintaining broader conventions? Is it worth it, in this case, to ignore a convention if the documentation is clearer as a result? What terminology would you use in place of "persistence" to describe these scopes? In general have we reached a time when too many good, God-damned descriptive terms have been co-opted for specific concepts leaving us with poor, second-cousin synonyms that don't explain things as well? Jim Davis (Sorry... late nights get me thinking.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210063 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
