>>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:50:47 -0500, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com> said:
KM> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>wrote:
KM> * Now that I see it in action, I'm not a fan of the term "contracts"
KM> here. When I see META-INF/contracts, it's not as obvious
KM> asMETA-INF/resources. I don't have an alternative yet, but the words
KM> "swappable" or "dynamic" come to mind.
EB> Well, we had the term "multi-template" but I don't want to use that term
EB> out of respect to the feature's originator, and former JSF Volunteer
EB> Group member, Lamine Ba. If we don't use it, that means he can still
EB> use it for his other projects, which is quite fine with me.
EB>
KM> Lamine doesn't mind if we use that term (see his e-mail to the users list).
KM> I think we need another name, regardless. Sorry to bring this up so late.
For reasons I can explain privately, I will not use the term
"multi-template". It really is a contract. A contract is a thing that
one or more parties agree to, and when all the parties agree to a
contract, the business can be conducted smoothly. Consider this text
from 10.1.3.1:
In order to use a resource library contract, one must know its
declared templates, their declared insertion points, and, optionally,
their declared resources.
Ed