Talk:application domain

Wikipedia Edit History
* (cur) (last) 09:54, 23 March 2006 Pissant [rollback] [proxycheck] * (cur) (last) 16:55, 12 February 2006 JonHarder (Sharpen category.) * (cur) (last) 12:38, 15 December 2005 SoberEmu (Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki Syntax) * (cur) (last) 12:38, 15 December 2005 SoberEmu (Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki Syntax) * (cur) (last) 13:06, 16 October 2005 SimonP (Category:Software) * (cur) (last) 18:29, 6 October 2005 Pgan002 m   * (cur) (last) 18:17, 6 October 2005 Pgan002 m    * (cur) (last) 18:16, 6 October 2005 Pgan002 * (cur) (last) 12:34, 8 September 2005 Theinfo m   * (cur) (last) 14:26, 19 August 2005 204.221.210.195 (Added a more precise definition) * (cur) (last) 14:59, 5 August 2005 Nowhither m (cap & punct, +"software" link) * (cur) (last) 12:46, 5 June 2005 SimonP (Category:Software engineering) * (cur) (last) 12:05, 3 June 2005 130.89.164.242 * (cur) (last) 12:01, 3 June 2005 130.89.164.242

Application domain

I'm unclear what this means still. Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think of it as a figurative use of "domain of expertise" - but I agree it seems to be sum-of-parts. I'm not sure whether it should be kept as a set phrase, or not.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion debate
def seems wrong. But also probably SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can’t guess the meaning, so it isn’t SoP. It it’s really a term, it should be defined by somebody who knows what it is. —Stephen 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Confusingly, WP has two separate articles that don't link to each other: Application Domain (the Microsoft .NET software concept, which is what this entry was defining) and Application domain (unrelated broader term where a "domain" is a sub-discipline). I have rewritten the def (in the given Microsoft sense) to try to make it a bit clearer. Equinox ◑ 15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, in programming, an "application domain" is the (virtual) space in which the application rules as reserved by its liege, the .NET framework. This does make us into a bit of a shill for Microsoft. How does it work in other realms? Would this be a good use of, pointing at Wikipedia? DCDuring TALK 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this term exists only in the .NET world. Mind you, I think the same thing applies to delegate:, and I'd be sorry to lose that. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The closest in IBM mainframe programming is the "problem state" - the state in which application programs run, as opposed to "supervisor state" in which the operating system runs and can execute more powerful op-codes. SemperBlotto 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's entirely the same. The "application domain" isn't a restricted domain for applications only, like userland: it is per application, so you might have Excel, Word and Notepad all running in separate application domains (supposing they were .NET applications). Equinox ◑ 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. This really just seems like a metaphor to an outsider, but it must have a life of its own. Can the use of a metaphor by a single vendor and its minions be deemed independent use? Is Microsoft like IUPAC for chemical names and the French Academy for French, the authority on language within its domain? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Microsoft dictates the language of its own technologies, yes &mdash; not only because you must use their terms to be easily understood by other .NETters, but also because the languages tend to enforce the terminology. (For example, if you want to do something to an application domain in your source code, you are likely to have to instantiate the AppDomain class: that's its built-in name.) IMO, the real question is whether we consider the technology (.NET generally, and app domains specifically) broad and important enough for inclusion in a dictionary. I would say this is a relatively obscure term and I expect some proportion of professional .NET programmers haven't had to care about them. Equinox ◑ 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this can be sum of parts because application + domain has no meaning to me whatsoever. Again, I don't know how it's actually used, but the SoP argument doesn't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept, weak consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)