[openvrml-develop] Considering renaming node_class

[Braden M. <br...@en...>]

I've been reminded recently that the distinction between "node_class" 
and "node_type" can be confusing; and I'm inclined to believe this is 
mostly because of how they're named. OOP tends to treat the terms 
"class" and "type" as synonyms. But in OpenVRML, a node_class is very 
different from a node_type.

I believe node_type is pretty accurately named. It corresponds to what 
the VRML97 spec calls a "node type". node_class, on the other hand, 
doesn't exactly correspond to anything in the spec. A concrete 
node_class provides a sort of foundation for the implementation of a 
suite of node_types that share that implementation. As such, it is 
closest to the VRML spec's concept of a PROTO. However, while a PROTO 
could be considered a "kind of" node_class (and in fact OpenVRML 
implements PROTOs that way), not all node_classes are PROTOs.

So I am considering renaming "node_class". The frontrunner in my mind at 
the moment is "node_metatype". This class is responsible for creating 
node_types; and it can create n! distinct node_types, where n is the 
number of node interfaces supported by the node implementation.

"node_type_factory" has also been suggested. It is accurate; this class 
is a factory for node_types. However, it strikes me as less expressive 
than "node_metatype".

Opinions? Other suggestions?

Braden