[Ns-developers] ns-3-object proposed for merge

[Gustavo Carneiro]

On 29/01/2008, Joseph Kopena <tjkopena at cs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 4:32 PM,  <craigdo at ee.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Something along the lines of,
> >
> >   AggregateClassObject and FindClassObject  or
> >   AggregateTypeObject  and LocateTypeObject
> >
> > seem to me to convey what's happening better.
> >
> > That said, I have no real strong feelings about the names and won't
> complain
> > about QueryObject and AddObject ... much (except when I continue to say
> > QueryInterface instead of QueryObject all the time and confuse everyone
> I
>
> My two cents that either of these sounds reasonable to me, with maybe
> a small nod to AddObject/AggegrateObject &
> GetObject/FindObject/FetchObject.  But, I found the whole notion of
> "Interfaces" in use here non-intuitive at first, as I've been strongly
> programmed to read "interface" in the Java sense, so I lend some
> support to the idea of changing it (though not critical).


I think AddObject/AggegrateObject & GetObject/FindObject/FetchObject really
conveys the wrong meaning.  Remember, this is not a simple object container,
far from it!  You can add multiple objects, but not if they are of the same
type.  For me, AddInterface and QueryInterface is the only terminology that
conveys the correct semantics.  Especially if you have background on COM.
If you don't have background on COM you can always point people to some COM
terminology and they'll understand (for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUnknown).

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert