Single word for “show while listening for events/requests”
The majority of components in a computer program I'm currently developing are allowed to "present" themselves to an external entity through a given medium (e.g., to a user through a pre-defined UI glyphs).
Whenever I ask them to do so, I will invoke the following command:
show(Medium)
A subset of said components, however, have slightly more privilege: not only that they are allowed to present themselves, they are also given the power to listen to interactions in the form of events and/or requests made, again, by an external entity.
As of this moment, the command looks like the following:
showAndListen(InteractiveMedium)
But I find that command to be rather clunky and in the need of a better name.
Is there any single word alternatives to showAndListen?
single-word-requests computing
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
add a comment |
The majority of components in a computer program I'm currently developing are allowed to "present" themselves to an external entity through a given medium (e.g., to a user through a pre-defined UI glyphs).
Whenever I ask them to do so, I will invoke the following command:
show(Medium)
A subset of said components, however, have slightly more privilege: not only that they are allowed to present themselves, they are also given the power to listen to interactions in the form of events and/or requests made, again, by an external entity.
As of this moment, the command looks like the following:
showAndListen(InteractiveMedium)
But I find that command to be rather clunky and in the need of a better name.
Is there any single word alternatives to showAndListen?
single-word-requests computing
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56
add a comment |
The majority of components in a computer program I'm currently developing are allowed to "present" themselves to an external entity through a given medium (e.g., to a user through a pre-defined UI glyphs).
Whenever I ask them to do so, I will invoke the following command:
show(Medium)
A subset of said components, however, have slightly more privilege: not only that they are allowed to present themselves, they are also given the power to listen to interactions in the form of events and/or requests made, again, by an external entity.
As of this moment, the command looks like the following:
showAndListen(InteractiveMedium)
But I find that command to be rather clunky and in the need of a better name.
Is there any single word alternatives to showAndListen?
single-word-requests computing
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
The majority of components in a computer program I'm currently developing are allowed to "present" themselves to an external entity through a given medium (e.g., to a user through a pre-defined UI glyphs).
Whenever I ask them to do so, I will invoke the following command:
show(Medium)
A subset of said components, however, have slightly more privilege: not only that they are allowed to present themselves, they are also given the power to listen to interactions in the form of events and/or requests made, again, by an external entity.
As of this moment, the command looks like the following:
showAndListen(InteractiveMedium)
But I find that command to be rather clunky and in the need of a better name.
Is there any single word alternatives to showAndListen?
single-word-requests computing
single-word-requests computing
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
edited 10 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
31.6k660112
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
asked Apr 16 '16 at 20:19
user170689user170689
61
61
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56
add a comment |
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I've never seen this word used, but there's a term called 'transput', which is both input and output together.
Though I would do something like
command_O()
and
command_IO( )
for distinguishing input/output.
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
add a comment |
I would named the command Avail.
In other words, the component is making itself available, both in the sense of appearance and being able to respond to the external entity's requests.
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
add a comment |
Your question contains its own answer:
interact(…)
A more jargony option is
interface(…)
but that doesn't clearly imply a bi-directional data flow.
A more conversational (less jargony) option, which has fewer syllables, is
converse(…)
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f319938%2fsingle-word-for-show-while-listening-for-events-requests%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I've never seen this word used, but there's a term called 'transput', which is both input and output together.
Though I would do something like
command_O()
and
command_IO( )
for distinguishing input/output.
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
add a comment |
I've never seen this word used, but there's a term called 'transput', which is both input and output together.
Though I would do something like
command_O()
and
command_IO( )
for distinguishing input/output.
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
add a comment |
I've never seen this word used, but there's a term called 'transput', which is both input and output together.
Though I would do something like
command_O()
and
command_IO( )
for distinguishing input/output.
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
I've never seen this word used, but there's a term called 'transput', which is both input and output together.
Though I would do something like
command_O()
and
command_IO( )
for distinguishing input/output.
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
answered Apr 16 '16 at 21:25
ComaComa
1292
1292
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would named the command Avail.
In other words, the component is making itself available, both in the sense of appearance and being able to respond to the external entity's requests.
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
add a comment |
I would named the command Avail.
In other words, the component is making itself available, both in the sense of appearance and being able to respond to the external entity's requests.
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
add a comment |
I would named the command Avail.
In other words, the component is making itself available, both in the sense of appearance and being able to respond to the external entity's requests.
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
I would named the command Avail.
In other words, the component is making itself available, both in the sense of appearance and being able to respond to the external entity's requests.
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
answered Apr 17 '16 at 4:21
pastepaste
1013
1013
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your question contains its own answer:
interact(…)
A more jargony option is
interface(…)
but that doesn't clearly imply a bi-directional data flow.
A more conversational (less jargony) option, which has fewer syllables, is
converse(…)
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
add a comment |
Your question contains its own answer:
interact(…)
A more jargony option is
interface(…)
but that doesn't clearly imply a bi-directional data flow.
A more conversational (less jargony) option, which has fewer syllables, is
converse(…)
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
add a comment |
Your question contains its own answer:
interact(…)
A more jargony option is
interface(…)
but that doesn't clearly imply a bi-directional data flow.
A more conversational (less jargony) option, which has fewer syllables, is
converse(…)
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
Your question contains its own answer:
interact(…)
A more jargony option is
interface(…)
but that doesn't clearly imply a bi-directional data flow.
A more conversational (less jargony) option, which has fewer syllables, is
converse(…)
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
answered Apr 17 '16 at 7:44
ScottScott
6,61282850
6,61282850
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f319938%2fsingle-word-for-show-while-listening-for-events-requests%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Off-topic: naming.
– Scott
Apr 18 '16 at 4:56