Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename Notification and Message classes. #75

Open
nwolek opened this issue Dec 30, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Rename Notification and Message classes. #75

nwolek opened this issue Dec 30, 2015 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@nwolek
Copy link
Member

nwolek commented Dec 30, 2015

I found this note in the comments here:

An Event in Jamoma may be one of three types:
        - Message
        - Parameter
        - Notification

If notification is a description of an Event, it is the thing being passed and not the actor. Therefore, it would make more sense to keep the term Notification in place.

Doing a bit of google searching revealed that almost no one refers to the class as Notifier. Instead this seems related to GoF 293 Observer pattern, where this is the name of the actor and the Notification is the thing being passed from the Subject.

@tap
Copy link
Member

tap commented Dec 30, 2015

A Notification is an event, yes. But the emitter of the notification is not an event. Thus the desire to call it the Notifier.

I believe in our conversation we got that part right. It is also still consistent with my reading of the GoF Observer text. What we need to review then is the naming of the others.

A Message is an event. So the "port" or "socket" in our object that accepts those messages should not be called message. Maybe we should call it Method.

Parameter on the other hand feels correctly named. What we send and receive from a parameter is not a "parameter" but a parameter-change, which is the event.

@tap tap changed the title Should notification be renamed as notifier? Rename Notification and Message classes. Dec 30, 2015
@tap
Copy link
Member

tap commented Jan 19, 2016

The term "socket" is a bit too overloaded a CS term. The term "port" is a little bit overloaded, but not so bad. Maybe the term "jack" would be better than both of them?

@nwolek nwolek removed the question label Jan 26, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants