From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
In fact, if Class wasn't final (and I hate the number of
times I've had to say that with Java), Clazz might even be a subtype of
Class. As it is, a Clazz which describes a particular class (e.g.
org.apache.commons.FooBar) probably has a reference to
Steve
Steve Downey wrote:
Clazz, or whatever, should provide MetaClass facilities. That is, it
should be
for creating, manipulating, etc Class instances. And, in java, an instance
of
java.lang.Class is a class. So j.l.Class is a type of MetaClass.
Technically a MetaClass is a Class. But
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:37 am, Victor Volle wrote:
Steve
Steve Downey wrote:
Clazz, or whatever, should provide MetaClass facilities. That is, it
should be
for creating, manipulating, etc Class instances. And, in java, an
instance
of
java.lang.Class is a class. So j.l.Class
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:09:01 -0400
From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [clazz] Naming
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07
Clazz, or whatever, should provide MetaClass facilities. That is, it should be
for creating, manipulating, etc Class instances. And, in java, an instance of
java.lang.Class is a class. So j.l.Class is a type of MetaClass.
But that shouldn't open the door for naming everything else Meta.
A
from:Victor Volle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do we need Clazz at all?
What is the difference between Clazz (Bean) and MetaClass?
What is Clazz (Bean) responsible for?
In the JDK the parallel is Class vs Object. In [beanutils] the parallel is DynaClass
vs DynaBean. Its the instantiated object.
from:Victor Volle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do we need Clazz at all?
What is the difference between Clazz (Bean) and MetaClass?
What is Clazz (Bean) responsible for?
In the JDK the parallel is Class vs Object. In [beanutils] the parallel is
DynaClass vs DynaBean. Its the instantiated
From: Victor Volle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But why not use 'Property' then the name clash doesn't arise?
I would not like to call a Field that has no
getters and setters a Property because I think it
clashes with the meaning of Property in JavaBeans.
A Property by the definition of the interface
Some more alternatives:
Meta class names: MetaClass, MetaField, MetaMethod.
Instance class names: MetaObject, Field, Method
Not attached to any of the above, but Clazz really grates with me :)
my 2 bits,
Tim
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne;btopenworld.com]
Naming is always a
IMO, we should take some widely used metamodel and apply the naming
consistently.
Java reflection: Class, Field, Method
EJB: Entity, Field, Method
UML: Class (clazz), Feature, Attribute, Operation, Association (for
relationships)
MOF/XMI: same
JavaBeans: BeanDescription, FeatureDescriptor,
(not an instance thereof).
- Dmitri
- Original Message -
From: Tim Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: [clazz] Naming
Some more alternatives:
Meta class names: MetaClass, MetaField, MetaMethod
perhaps too vague.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Dmitri Plotnikov [mailto:dmitri;apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:32 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [clazz] Naming
I would like to suggest that if we use the prefix meta, we use it in
accordance
12 matches
Mail list logo
