On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 12:55 -0800, reed wrote: > > On Dec 15, 3:30 pm, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:25 -0500, Chris Rossi wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, reed <reedobr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I am not adverse to renaming, but I think it needs to be > > > definitive > > > and concise enough to prevent more questions from arising than > > > it > > > would solve. I don't think 'resource' meets those criteria. > > > > > I tend to agree with this. I'll try to brainstorm alternative > > > terminology. If we don't come up with something better, I think model > > > is fine. Resource is also fine, really, but why change to something > > > that could also be confusing since it is overloaded? > > > > The need for a change is mostly rationalized by this: > > > > http://docs.pylonshq.com/pyramid/dev/designdefense.html#pyramid-uses-... > > > > As well as various posts to this list (and pylons-discuss), as well as > > IRC and IRL conversations I've had with various (non-Zopey) people. > > Is there something particularly bad about node? I had said atom > earlier, but I think that implies 'smallest unit' and that wouldn't > necessarily be true. How about 'entity'? >
Traversal can be used in many circumstances to "locate a resource" ala URL. Of course it's not a definitive one-for-one matching, as a view name may be part of the URL, which would cause a different HTTP resource to be returned for the same Pyramid "resource". OTOH, "node" doesn't really have any relation to the web at all. I think folks who prefer "node" (or really anything-not-resource) are arguing that this is a good thing, however. - C -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en.
