IdentityObject and InlineObject

[Elias N Vasylenko]

Then why not simply Identifiable?

   class String implements Identifiable

Has a decent ring to it.

On 12 April 2020 17:04:16 Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

>> Possible candidates:
>>
>> - Identity, as in "class Foo implements Identity".  This says what it
>> means, though it is quite possible that it will clash with existing
>> types.  (This is not an absolute disqualifier, but it is a
>> consideration.)
>> - IdentityObject.  This is where we are now; it always felt a little
>> clunky to me.
>> - ObjectIdentity ("class Foo implements ObjectIdentity").  Better
>> than IdentityObject, less likely to clash than Identity.
>> - WithIdentity.  Not the best name, but less likely than Identity to
>> clash.
>>
>> Others?
>
> Thinking on this for a few days ...
>
> I like "Identity" but it is sure to clash with every ORM and similar
> system out there.  I think I slightly prefer `ObjectIdentity` to
> `IdentityObject`, and both to `WithIdentity` and `HasIdentity`.
>
> Note that originally we were thinking that these types might be abstract
> classes; now that they are interfaces, this has slight consequences for
> the natural naming, as interfaces are often named for adjectives
> (Comparable) but abstract classes are almost always named for nouns.  We
> should evaluate these, in part, on how they sound in
>
>     class C implements I
>
> and,
>
>     class String implements ObjectIdentity
>
> more directly expresses the point -- that one of the behaviors of String
> is that it has an object identity -- than does:
>
>     class String implements IdentityObject
>
> It also puts the focus on the _identity_, rather than the object itself,
> which is consistent with breaking this behavior out of the root type and
> into a "mix in."


Sent with AquaMail for Android
https://www.mobisystems.com/aqua-mail