On 29 Nov 2016, at 09:58, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel@gmail.com> wrote:

"DataSource" is responsible for providing visual elements that represent items in a data set.

I don't see how word "Store" fits here, because DataSource does not store anything. DataSource is also not the best name since it is not a data source itself.
An object that is now called DataSource, basically just knows a single function that from mathematical point of view can be defined as follows:
f: Object -> Morph . You see, it is a mapping, not a souse or store.

Store != Storage.

A store is a place where you go to get stuff (same as FileSystem stores: they give you access to different filesystems, as a FTDataSource gives you access to different data structures) :)

In Gtk3, you have GtkListView, and GtkListStore, for example.

And DataSource is another stuff in Cocoa, from where I borrowed the design: https://developer.apple.com/reference/appkit/nstableviewdatasource

So�� I still rest my argument.

Anyway�� we will NEVER reach a 100% agreement. We just need to go with what fits better current design/general idea.

Esteban

Cheers,
Alex

On 29 November 2016 at 09:44, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:

2016-11-29 9:35 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
yes, something like TableCellSource or TableCellProvider is more intention revealing.

No, because is not *just* a cell provider.
TableDataSource, TableStore, TableProvider, yes.

I kind of like ��TableStore��.

And if we have TableMorph then this guy should be TableMorphStore IMO.