A
aDeamon
A strange question maybe... but is a java servlet classified as an
object?
object?
M
Mike Schilling
aDeamon said:
Yes. It implements the interface javax.servlet.Servlet, whuch defines how
it interacts with the servlet container in which it runs. Generally, it's
created by subclassing either javax.servlet.GenericServlet or
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet. (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything*
in Java is an object
See http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.0-doc/servletapi/index.html for
further details.
L
Lew
Mike said:(The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object
Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that.
M
Mike Schilling
Lew said:
It occured to me afterwards that the JVM isn't an object.
L
Lew
Mike said:
Yes, but the JVM isn't in Java.
M
Mike Schilling
Lew said:
Which is more or less the same statement: if Java reified the JVM, it would
do so as an object.
Java happens to refity the idea of "servlet". If it didn't, servlets
wouldn't be in Java nor would they be objects.
Z
Z.
??? reified, refity ... there are terms unfamiliar to me.
L
Lew
Z. said:
"refity" is a misspelling of "reify", to "make real", or more generally,
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reify>
K
Karl Uppiano
Lew said:
I wonder why they don't just say "realize".
M
Mike Schilling
Karl Uppiano said:
Sorry for the typo ("refity" for "reify"). I used "reify" because it means
precisely to make concrete, or to materialize.
L
Lew
Mike said:
Whereas "realize" is overloaded with the meaning "achieve understanding,
knowledge or enlightenment", which might confuse some readers. "Reify" is
unambiguous as well as precise.
If we all had to use the same, simple words for things we'd lose most of the
power of English, in fact, we wouldn't be speaking English we'd be speaking
that tool of political and social oppression, Newspeak.
K
Karl Uppiano
Lew said:
I see your point, however, I often hear the term "realize" to mean
"instantiate", "implement"; to make real. "To achieve understanding,
knowledge or enlightenment" is actually a slight perversion of the term
"real-ize". I have never confused the meaning when it is used in context.
But "re-ify" left me scratching my head. "Real-ify" might have given me a
clue, but I might have again asked, why not "real-ize"?
We overload word meanings in English all the time, with little or no
confusion. I am not a word nazi, and I like some of the new terms to come
out of the "haxxor" community, such as "boxen", the plural of "box". But
that makes sense (and a bit of a play on words) since, for example, we use
the same ending for "oxen" for the plural of "ox".
Shakespeare used to invent new words all the time, and many of his
inventions are still with us. Others never caught on, because they were too
contrived simply not useful. I predict that "reify" will fall into the
latter category, given the test of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_invented_by_Shakespeare
L
Lew
Karl said:
I believe "boxen" precedes the "haxxor" folks by a few decades.
K
Karl Uppiano
Lew said:
Maybe software developers in general, then. I only became aware of the term
5 or 10 years ago, I'm guessing.
M
Mike Schilling
Or "Vaxen", the plural of "Vax".
L
Lew
Mike said:
Waaaay before haxxor script kiddies who really should lay claim to nothing
beyond what the Rockers and Mods accomplished:
<http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/swil/archives/Misc_Works/mitjargonfile/hacker1.txt>
It goes back to at least 1983.
J
John W. Kennedy
Karl said:
A) Shakespeare invented fewer words than people think. He has the unfair
advantage of being famous and widely read.
B) "Reify" has been a standard word since early Victorian days.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org