From: JamesBritt <james@...>
Date: 2002-02-04T14:08:03+09:00
Subject: Terminology (was: Soap4r/Webrick question)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
> Thomas
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:50 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Soap4r/Webrick question
> 
> 
> 
> First of all: I'm impressed! The combined webrick/soap demo in
> samples/webrick really shows the power of Ruby: creating a SOAP
> servlet which in turn queries a remote SOAP server, running the
> servlet under Webrick, and querying it using a local client, all in a
> few small source files is very, very impressive.

Some thinking out loud ...

I'm puzzled about the use of the term "servlet."  I'm pretty sure
the term was created to describe certain Java(tm) technology; if not,
it is probbably the first association people have.

Java(tm) servlets seem intended to make it less-complicated to do
HTTP-based programming in Java.  As Dave has pointed out, doing
similar tasks in Ruby is much easier; the language as-is lends itself
to such tasks.

I understand that using the term "servlet" conveys some information about
what the Webrick code is intended to do, but it sounds like it's an
effort to get Ruby to keep up with Java.  The truth is (at least
in this case) Ruby makes the task easier than does Java; borrowing
Java-jargon seems discrediting to Ruby.

I'm wondering at what point appropriating handy but essentially 
mismatched lingo or metaphors becomes harmful.  Or if this is even
the case.


James