From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2002-02-04T14:32:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Terminology (was: Soap4r/Webrick question)

" JamesBritt" <james@jamesbritt.com> writes:

> 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 have to admit I'm not a web programmer, so my view is not
particularly representative, but until you posted this there was never
any connection in my mind between the WEBrick use of 'servlet' and
Java. Now, of course, I've been corrupted, and the link will be
forever there :)

In reality, I'm not sure this is a big deal. If we say "WEBrick
servlet" to a Java programmer, we're giving them a pretty good initial
picture of some functionality (although they'd be blown away by the
flexibility). If we say it to a non-Java programmer, we'd have to
explain that it's a away of associating code invocation with a
subtree on an HTTP server. Either way, there doesn't seem to be too
much harm done.

We _could_ invent new jargon. I wonder if that would communicate
better than using the existing terms as a metaphor?


Dave