Names for things
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
You should read The Name of The Wind - By Patrick Rothfuss[^]. The magicians like "Naming" things as they have a talent in the naming of things.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
John, Paul, George and Ringo
Not very exntensible. I used characters from "The Love Boat" once, and eventually had to add parts of the ship.
This space intentionally left blank.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
And I thought I'm the only idiot spending half of his development time on making self explanatory names... I'm glad not to be alone... But really, Service-Agency-Agent-Process can be good...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Broker
Prime Minister
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Broker -> Prime Minister Service -> HouseOfLords Agent -> Mayor Process -> CivilServants Tim
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
-
Broker -> Prime Minister Service -> HouseOfLords Agent -> Mayor Process -> CivilServants Tim
Seriously? The PM doesn't control the House of Commons let alone the Lords. But this gives me an idea - Possessor, Dominus, Exactoris & Servus.
-
Broker - Dispatcher ? Service - Handler ? Agent - Dalek ?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
Rage wrote:
Agent - Dalek ?
Are you mad? And leave me open to paying royalties to *him*!
-
Broker - Dispatcher ? Service - Handler ? Agent - Dalek ?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Seriously? The PM doesn't control the House of Commons let alone the Lords. But this gives me an idea - Possessor, Dominus, Exactoris & Servus.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Seriously?
Of course not serious! But it did provide a logical progression that could be understand, even if it was only a metaphor.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
-
[0] This ain't a question. [1] Same component, different issue.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Go on then, trivialise the whole thing
Okay... - Broker = Bar - Service = Bartender - Agent = Waiter - Process = Patron
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Broker => MessageDispatcher Service => MessageManager Agent => MessageHandler Process => MessageTemplate
“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
-
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
I'm surprised no one came up with this: Broker -> Pimp Service -> Yeah, you keep that as Service Agent -> John Process -> [...] Job Marc
-
You should read The Name of The Wind - By Patrick Rothfuss[^]. The magicians like "Naming" things as they have a talent in the naming of things.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
Isn't it a great feeling when you find the true name of your graphics processor and it responds when you summon it? :)
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript. -
This is really bugging me. I'm building a component that is basically a message broker. The broker has a set of services, which in turn have agents for different messages that are actually dealt with by plug in process components. I'm happy with the way it sits together, but I am not happy with the names I have: - Broker = top level component. It was called Server, but that doesn't sit with Service - Service = logical grouping of message agents that can talk directly to each other [there is a separate protocol for out of server interfacing] - Agent = handles individual messages including their state - Process = plug-ins to process different messages; this is where all the business logic lives. I just think the names could be better. The whole thing is set up with config, so these names become important; well I think they do. Any suggestions? Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Go on then, trivialise the whole thing and suggest I just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo.
I'm curious as to know why you chose "Ringo" (Translates to Apple as far as I recall) as a name. Basically, Naming conventions need to be clear and concise. When naming Variables that might be confusing I comment them in. BillWoodruff seems to have the same idea I have with naming my handles.
Quote:
Broker => MessageDispatcher Service => MessageManager Agent => MessageHandler Process => MessageTemplate
As you can see, it's simple and concise and it actually works. Easy to understand variables = easy to understand variables.
