The problem is that people are confused by the term Model, so they will also be confused by Logic. I want to remove the confusion and make clear that it is a user interface (and that it is composable by default) -> ComposableUI. It could also be ComposableUserInterface but we do not win anything by that name, as UI is a standard acronym + we would have to type more when subclassing it. So I prefer ComposableUI.
On Feb 19, 2015, at 14:37, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
I know :) So may be Logic because this is the logic of the application.
Stef Le 19/2/15 18:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
Well, it means User Interface ;-)
The thing that got everybody confused is precisely the word Model, if we keep that the confusion will continue.
On 19 Feb 2015, at 18:11, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi Johan
For me UI does not mean anything. So may be ComposableUIModel? Or ComposableUILogic
Stef
Le 19/2/15 13:22, Johan Fabry a écrit :
Hi all,
I donât read mails on pharo-dev usually, so sorry if this has been discussed before (and then pointers to the discussion would be appreciated).
Last week, in Pharo-users I proposed the Spec terminology changes below. Responses were positive. I am willing to volunteer to do that next week so itâs finished before the 28th and itâs included in Pharo 4. And then I will update the documentation as well. But first I want to know if there are any objections from people on this list.
I propose to rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI - all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*â
Other renaming-related comments are also welcome.
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile