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.
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.
-
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.
It bugs all of us. No matter if you chose wisely or flippantly, 4 years down the track, you are always going to say WTF or WTE, when doing your recognisance on your old code.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
It bugs all of us. No matter if you chose wisely or flippantly, 4 years down the track, you are always going to say WTF or WTE, when doing your recognisance on your old code.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
