From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2002-02-04T14:54:44+09:00
Subject: RE: Terminology (was: Soap4r/Webrick question)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: JamesBritt [mailto:james@jamesbritt.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:08 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> 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.

Well, the term servlet came along to balance out what was being done on the
client with Java (applet).  Applet came along because they were trying to
describe "small application" -> Applet.  Servlet, in a similar way, was
trying to discribe a "small server" -> Servlet.  It is from the Java camp,
but I think that that is exactly what the WEBrick stuff gives you...the
ability to build a bunch of small servers (servlets).

>
> 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.

Actually, HTTPServlet is a specific type of Java Servlet.  The Java servlet
model is independent of the protocol...most people just happen to subclass
HTTPServlet and do HTTP programming.

>
> 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 think it IS about building a library in Ruby (whose model has been proven
by Java) but Ruby just does a heck of a lot better (and simpler ;)  I don't
think we should shy away from taking frameworks/patterns created in Java and
moving them to Ruby, as long as its done in such a way as to take advantage
of Ruby in the process.  REXML began as a port of Electric XML
(www.themindelectric.com) but Sean has SO refactored it as to not have much
in common anymore.  And the minute you use WEBrick and mount a series of
blocks as servlets (instead of classes)...well...the Java guy's mouths drop.

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

I think its just discriptive (not necessarily a metaphor).

-rich