[cap-talk] Objects and Facets

[David Hopwood]

Charles Landau wrote:
> Unfortunately, we need some better terminology for describing 
> composites, which is why many people are using the term "object" when 
> they mean composite.

I prefer "component" rather than "composite":

 - it is the term most commonly used for this concept in object-oriented
   design.
 - "composite" tends to imply strictly more than one object, whereas
   what we want is a term that includes a single object as a special
   case.

> At 1:19 PM +0100 8/7/06, David Hopwood wrote:
> 
>>there is a socket object ... The socket object
>>is part of the implementation of the remote object
> 
> These are clearly composites, not finest-grain objects.

The context was:

# Consider a start key to a process implementing an Ethernet socket.
# From the kernel's perspective, the start key is a facet of a process
# object, and an invocation of the key just delivers a message to the
# process. From a higher perspective, the object is the socket service,
# and an invocation of the key sends a message on the socket.

So a specific object (a facet of the socket component capable of sending
messages) was being referred to.

# From a yet higher perspective, the object is something on the other end
# of the socket, and an invocation of the key sends a message and receives
# a response from that thing.

This also referred to a specific remote object, not just a remote
composite/component.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>