net.shibboleth.utilities.java.support.component.*

[Brent Putman]

On 2/18/14 10:23 AM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> I don't care that much because I think having one without the other is
> quite unusual, but FWIW, I think those terms strike me as backwards. If
> it's identified, I think of it as having an ID I can get, and if it's
> identifiable, I think of it as something I can identify (that is assign a
> name to).

That's my natural inclination as well.


>  and frankly Nameable and Named seem clearer and
> shorter.

I guess they are a little ... but I think I'm still persuaded by the
argument that it's really driven by the Spring use case, and there it's
'id'.  So I lean towards Identified/Identifiable.  Also I think of 'id'
as implying uniqueness;  'name' not as much.