I think a consistency rule should be in place. When you are referring to the "id" attribute value of another element, you should use the attribute name <element-name>-id="yaddayadda". As in...
<implementation service-id="yaddayadda"> This is somewhat similar to the naming convention people use in databases. So, I have a person table with an "id" column, and whenever there is a foreign key pointing to a person, its column name is "person_id". At least that's how I like to structure it. Some people would rather name the person table's "id" column "person_id" thereby keeping the meaning of "person_id" consistent across ALL tables. I could even live with (I guess)... <service service-id="MyService"> <implementation service-id="MyService"> It doesn't really matter what convention is chosen, as long as there is a consistency to it, really (my $0.02). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [HiveMind] naming update > Yeah ... the verb'ed attribute name is awkward. > > The underlying problem is the simularity between: > <configuration-point id="..."> and > <configuration point-id="..."> > > Option A: > <configuration-point id="..."> > <contribution point-id="..."> > > Option B: > <configuration-point id="..."> > <contribution id="..."> > > (Don't like this one; are we defining a contribution or making a contribution?) > > Option C: > <define-configuration-point id="..."> > <configuration point-id="..."> > > (Kinda like this one ... but then should it be <define-service>?) > > Other options? > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/ > http://javatapestry.blogspot.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:16 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [HiveMind] naming update > > > > > > I don't know if I'd put the "for" in there, but I like the > > "implementation" idea.... > > > > <implementation service-id="yaddayaddayadda"> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:00 AM > > Subject: RE: [HiveMind] naming update > > > > > > > Current consensus: > > > > > > <service id=> --> <service-point id=> > > > <extend-service service-id=> --> <service for-service-id=> > > > <extension-point id=> --> <configuration-point id=> <extension > > > point-id=> --> <configuration for-point-id=> > > > > > > ... but consider: > > > > > > <extend-service service-id=> --> <implementation for-service-id=> > > > > > > -- > > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/ > > > http://javatapestry.blogspot.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Howard M. Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:39 AM > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: [HiveMind] naming update > > > > > > > > > > > > Harish's suggestion: > > > > > > > > <service id=> --> <service-point id=> > > > > <extend-service service-id=> --> <service service-id=> > > > > <extension-point id=> --> <configuration-point id=> <extension > > > > point-id=> --> <configuration point-id=> > > > > > > > > Everyone seems pretty keen on this. > > > > > > > > I have minor reservations about <service> not quite > > capturing what > > > > the element does. I agree that <extend-service> has some > > unwanted > > > > connotations. <provide-service> perhaps? At one time it was > > > > <contribute-service>. > > > > > > > > Last point was the excessive simularity of <configuration-point > > > > id="..."> and <configuration point-id="...">. > > > > > > > > Perhaps that should be <configuration for-point-id="..."> to help > > > > distinguish the two visually? An earlier version was > > > > <contribute-configuration> but damn thats long. > > > > > > > > Alternately, here's my suggestion: > > > > > > > > <service> --> <define-service-point> > > > > <extend-service> --> <service> > > > > <extension-point> --> <define-configuration-point> > > <extension> --> > > > > <configuration> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > > > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry > > > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/ > > > http://javatapestry.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
