On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 14:35 Europe/London, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:'provider' is too generic a name. Would this mean 'mail provider'?
'session replication provider?' A package without a definite definition
isn't going to solve the problems.
If you look at the spec, there's a section for the "product
provider" and a section called "tool provider". We split this into "tool"
(tool provider) and "provider" (product provider), since at the time it
seemed better than "tool" and "product". Anything you can some up with to
distinguish "tool" from "product" is good. They ought to go in different
packages, because they need to go in different JARs.
I think you would be better off calling them 'tool' and 'product' then. It's clear that even looking at the specs on its own, there is a potential for misunderstanding between 'tool provider' and 'product provider'. Or 'mail provider' or 'transaction provider' ... etc.
The problem is that the package should be called (IMHO) on what it is doing. A provider is a generic noun, whereas using the more descriptive 'tool' or 'product' may give it a more descriptive name (or come up with a better package name :-)
I concur that they probably need to go into different JARs, and therefore come from different packages, but think that a less generic name may be better.
Alex.
