Servlets and objects

java-programmer, Servlets and objects A strange question maybe... but is a java servlet classified as an
object?

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"aDeamon" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
>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.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Mike Schilling wrote:
> (The shortcut to "yes" is that *everything* in Java is an object :-)

Modulo primitives, and autoboxing helps that.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> 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.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Lew" wrote
>> 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.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "Lew" wrote
>>> 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.

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.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects 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.

> 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.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Z. wrote:
> 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.
>
>> 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.

"refity" is a misspelling of "reify", to "make real", or more generally,
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reify>

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Z. wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> "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".

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Karl Uppiano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:QMb%h.3103$rm.281@trndny03...
>
> "Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>> Z. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> "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".

Sorry for the typo ("refity" for "reify"). I used "reify" because it means
precisely to make concrete, or to materialize.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects "Karl Uppiano" <email***@***.com> wrote
>> I wonder why they don't just say "realize".

Mike Schilling wrote:
> 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.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> "Karl Uppiano" <email***@***.com> wrote
>>> I wonder why they don't just say "realize".
>
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> 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.

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

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Karl Uppiano wrote:
> 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.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Karl Uppiano wrote:
>> 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.

Maybe software developers in general, then. I only became aware of the term
5 or 10 years ago, I'm guessing.

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects
"Karl Uppiano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:9zo%h.2062$HR1.1517@trnddc01...

>
> 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".

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Karl Uppiano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:9zo%h.2062$HR1.1517@trnddc01...
>
>> 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.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Servlets and objects Karl Uppiano wrote:
> 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.

--
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