Stephen Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally believe that "beans" is a totally stupid name, > created by some developers trying to be too-cute-by-half > (a "bean" is a little piece of Java/coffee), and it is Java-centric. > The marketing people at Sun must have had nightmares trying to figure > out how to convince Corporate technology purchasers that "Java Beans" > is a serious technology. Furthermore, Sun created extra confusion > by having "Java Beans", most often used for user interface widget > development, and "Enterprise Java Beans", dealing primarily with > entity object access on the server.
> So I don't really have a better suggestion than his. > If people still want to discuss this, have at it. > I think it is premature, and nothing will really get resolved > until we have code that does something. Then we can give it > a good name that is descriptive of what it does rather than > being a cutesy name. There's nothing wrong with cusey names. It's all marketing. And remember the rest of the world _is_ competing with the Microsoft marketing engine whether they thing so or not. So in the line of 'cutesy' it (humbly) submit "perl pearls' or 'jems'. You could then write: "just string a bunch of pearls together..." (written in Perl of course). Unfortunately, 'beans' have now caught on the the enterprise managers' mind (whatever that is) and thats all that they can think of, or ask for on resumes. So sticking with 'beans' means you don't have to try to re-educate a mind set. (Which I've found to be impossible. Just look at the 'hacker' vrs. 'cracker' issue if your not convinced.) Just my 2 cents worth. Fulko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fulko Hew, Voice: 905-681-5570 Senior Engineering Designer, Fax: 905-681-5556 SITA (Burlington) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 777 Walkers Line, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, L7N 2G1
