Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Andrey Popp
Hello, On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > I'm considering making a fairly major terminology change to the Pyramid > docs.  I'd like to consider renaming the term "model" to "resource" in > the docs. I think "resource" term isn't suitable for this kind of thing, as being po

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Christoph Zwerschke
Am 16.12.2010 09:59 schrieb Andrey Popp: How about term "location"? I think it's more suitable: This sounds reasonable to me as somebody who has not yet used Pyramid and is not yet aquainted with its functionality. I don't like the term "model" because it is confusing for people coming from

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Chris McDonough
While it seems people generally agree that some change is required here, it also seems there are a good number of people who don't like "resource". Here are the arguments against it: - we're just switching one overloaded term ("model") for another ("resource"). Zope people tend to think of sta

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Fernando Correa Neto
Hi On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > While it seems people generally agree that some change is required here, > it also seems there are a good number of people who don't like > "resource".  Here are the arguments against it: > > - we're just switching one overloaded term

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Chris McDonough
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 00:08 -0200, Fernando Correa Neto wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > > While it seems people generally agree that some change is required here, > > it also seems there are a good number of people who don't like > > "resource". Here ar

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Gopalakrishnan Subramani
In my opinion, a resource applies to the non-livable content such as images, videos, audios, dialog templates, icons, css/js scripts where those files cannot be executed within the program domain but very much useful within the domain like file rendering, file serving purpose. Again model tends to

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Fernando Correa Neto
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 00:08 -0200, Fernando Correa Neto wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: >> > While it seems people generally agree that some change is required here, >> > it also seems there are

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Gopalakrishnan Subramani
Other names "WebObject" or "WebNode". It could be a Url or any object Pyramid supported. On Dec 17, 7:57 am, Fernando Correa Neto wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 00:08 -0200, Fernando Correa Neto wrote: > >> Hi > > >> On Fri, Dec 17,

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Mark Ramm
So, I will confess to being the one who asked for this change, and while I'm definitely open to other options, I think resource is a good term for items in the graph. The graph itself I'm not sure what to call, but I think model is confusing because it is too easy to confuse with a "domain model"

Re: pyramid terminology: "model"->"resource"

2010-12-16 Thread Chris McDonough
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 23:57 -0500, Mark Ramm wrote: > So, I will confess to being the one who asked for this change, and > while I'm definitely open to other options, I think resource is a good > term for items in the graph. The graph itself I'm not sure what to > call, but I think model is confus