Observable is named after the Observer pattern in my eyes. Notifying is OK as a name, and possibly clearer in intent, however I'm not sure that a commons component named [notifying] quite sounds right. [notify] maybe, but then thats not quite right either. Any other naming views? Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've had all positives so far. I'm going to take this as agreed and > > move > > the code to a new sandbox project. I reckon [observable] is probably > > the > > best name, although I'm open to offers. > > I don't have strongly held opinions on the naming, but I went through > the process of picking a name for a collections > observable/notifying/eventsending/callbacking package, and I figured > I'd share the thoughts I had on it. > > Firstly, it certainly should be [observable] rather than [observed], > but I'm not going to pretend to remember enough about english grammar > to explain why [observable] is better :) > > I had originally considered this [observable] name when I set about > creating my implementation. One of the first things I did (this was > circa Sep 2002 I think) was search on the web to see if anybody else > had already implemented such a package. The snippet of text that > decisively turned me away from the [observable] name was this: > > > Observability. An observable collection is one in which it is > possible to view the elements in a collection. > > @ http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/edison/users007.html > > ... which of course is the crux of the issue. The familiar > implementations of the collections API are all observable, in that you > can examine the elements of the collection, such as via an iterator. > But the [notifying/observable] implementations we've developed > *actively* signal information, typically when the collection changes > (although that is not necessarily the case - I could envisage an > implementation that sends an event when the collection changes *or* > every X seconds, or when some other predicate is satisfied). > > So, rather than denoting passivity, I figured the name needed to > indicate the "active signaling of state information by the object being > observed". A snappier name for this behaviour is "notification", so I > went with the name [notifyingcollections] over [observablecollections]. > You also save a letter in typing ;) > > Though I don't feel very strongly about it, I still believe that > [notifying] is a more indicative name than [observable], and I would > suggest we use it. However, I still have a sneaking suspicion that > there is a fugitive word out there that better captures the essence of > the "active signalling of state information by the object being > observed", so hats off to anyone who can conjure it up :) > > >neil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
