Its certainly short, snappy and to the point. One argument against might be it being a wide ranging term.
Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "__matthewHawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is this "observable" project based on the concept of "events"? If so, > what about something like [events]? > > Also, there's always [observation]. > > > > > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
