> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Noone on this list has ever suggested we carry this down to the
> class/names and methods.
>
> Be careful with your analogies Leo, or Peter will ignore them
> completely. Make sure you are comparing apples with apples and not with
oranges.
>
> We are talking sub-project names not class names.
Yes, but since the sub project names show up as package names, ***as
a potential user of Excalibur has to keep track of them***, they are
just as bad.
> Inside of Fortress, there are regular class names that represent what
> the classes do. I am not going to change that.
No, and I never thought you would - that would be too confusing, wouldn't
it? But you are a committer, and furthermore you wrote that code.
For someone who isn't a committer, and who has no experience with the code,
having strange package names is as confusing as renaming classes/methods
would be for you.
Like I said, if these names were never ever shown to anyone except those
actually developing Avalon, then I could maybe grudgingly accept the
proposed convention. But they are not. Users, who get some stuff from
Excalibur, some from Cocoon, some from Xerces, etc. etc. will be
exposed to them.
And that will confuse them something terrible, for no good reason.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
