Re: Component -> Slinglet?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Okay, it seems that we've not found a good name yet. I think if we
can't come up with a better name, we should use Slinglet.

But I would prefer a name which somehow tells you what this object does.
And to make better optical distinction from Content it should not start
with "Co" :)

As Servlet is obviously already used what about one of these:
- Provider (the component provides/delivers content)
- Supplier
- Distributor

Carsten





-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: Component -> Slinglet?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On 10/1/07, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:

> ...I would prefer a name which somehow tells you what this object does....

Thinking about it, our Components currently have *two* major roles, right?

1) Render a Content object (SlingRenderer role?)

2) Process an incoming request which might modify the Content
(SlingRequestHandler role?)

Maybe the two roles should be split in distinct interfaces, to make
naming easier?

Also, I just noticed that ComponentRequest, for example, makes no
reference to the Component interface. Makes me think that it could be
called SlingRequest instead, and maybe (too busy to look now) there
are other of our ComponentX types that might benefit from a similar
renaming.

Sorry if I'm not making things easier ;-)

-Bertrand