* Raul Nohea Goodness ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > 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.

While i accept the raw facts behind this argument, i think we need to
avoid a "copying Java solution", as this approach is ultimately doomed
to failure.  If someone wants to start this debate off as another
thread, i'll contribute, however not today, as I am supposed to
spending quality time with the wife.

> > (Which I've found to be impossible.  Just look at the 'hacker'
> > vrs. 'cracker' issue if your not convinced.)

This is probably a troll, but its not an out and out intentional one
....

One reason for this is probably similar to the reason why Linux is
still called Linux instead of GNU/Linux - and no, i'm not saying it is
because Linux was used first.

> I'm in favor of tipping the hat to Java and using "beans" to describe 
> standard components. Most developers know what you mean.

At the end of the day the first person to write a nice object
container system should have the liberty of naming the objects
however they want. There is a risk that we go the way of any mailing
list project and decide every irrelevant detail and produce sod
all [1]. 

If anyone really wants them to be called Bunnies[2] then they should
go ahead and put the effort into either producing a kick ass container
system or an even more kick ass P5EE presentation/website that
inspires the masses. The later of course runs the risk of inspiring
the masses and achieving nothing and was only included to acknowledge
the fact we need a marketting element to this project.

Greg


[1] To people who are offended by the phrase "sod all", be comforted
that it was toned down to that, instead of a more graphic
alternative. ;-) 
[2] Random plural noun, choosen due to the "I've got a theory ....."
song in a recent episode of a popular series.


-- 
Greg McCarroll                                 http://217.34.97.146/~gem/

Reply via email to