 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / May 2007Servlets and objects
A strange question maybe... but is a java servlet classified as an object? >A strange question maybe... but is a java servlet classified as an > object? 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. > (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that.  SignatureLew >> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) > > Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that. It occured to me afterwards that the JVM isn't an object. >> Mike Schilling wrote: >>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) >> Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that. > > It occured to me afterwards that the JVM isn't an object. Yes, but the JVM isn't in Java. SignatureLew >>> Mike Schilling wrote: >>>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, but the JVM isn't in Java. 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. >>>>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) >>>> Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that. >>> It occured to me afterwards that the JVM isn't an object. >> Yes, but the JVM isn't in Java. > 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. ??? reified, refity ... there are terms unfamiliar to me. >>>>>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) >>>>> Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ??? reified, refity ... there are terms unfamiliar to me. "refity" is a misspelling of "reify", to "make real", or more generally, <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reify> SignatureLew >>>>>>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-) >>>>>> Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "refity" is a misspelling of "reify", to "make real", or more generally, > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reify> I wonder why they don't just say "realize". >>>>>>>> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object >>>>>>>> :-) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I wonder why they don't just say "realize". Sorry for the typo ("refity" for "reify"). I used "reify" because it means precisely to make concrete, or to materialize. "Karl Uppiano" <karl.uppiano@verizon.net> wrote >> I wonder why they don't just say "realize". > Sorry for the typo ("refity" for "reify"). I used "reify" because it means > precisely to make concrete, or to materialize. 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. SignatureLew > "Karl Uppiano" <karl.uppiano@verizon.net> wrote >>> I wonder why they don't just say "realize". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > knowledge or enlightenment", which might confuse some readers. "Reify" is > unambiguous as well as precise. 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"? > 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. 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 > 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". I believe "boxen" precedes the "haxxor" folks by a few decades. SignatureLew >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I believe "boxen" precedes the "haxxor" folks by a few decades. Maybe software developers in general, then. I only became aware of the term 5 or 10 years ago, I'm guessing. > 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". Or "Vaxen", the plural of "Vax". >> 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". > > Or "Vaxen", the plural of "Vax". 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. SignatureLew > 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. 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. SignatureJohn 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 Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.