Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
I still think that we shouldn't use a descriptive name in order to not
confuse our users (and ourselves).
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that we
should use descriptive names :)
The current Corona code is a collection of various modules that are
developed in layers. I can use the lowest layer (the pipelines) without
ever using the above layers (sitemap, controller etc.). So I end up with
using a part of Corona. This part is (small) project on its own and imho
calls for an own name.
If we think further ahead, we might come to the point where we base
Cocoon 3.0 on Corona - and I think at this point, it's easier if we have
descriptive names - as a Cocoon 3.0 is just the assembly of the separate
parts with some additional sugar on top (ok, this might sound easier as
it might be in the end, but anyway).
If you look at other projects, for instance Spring or Felix, they're
doing it the same way: descriptive names.
What would Spring do if the have a rewrite that _might_ become Spring
4.0 but they don't know yet?
Atm we have only a small set of modules in the Corona code, but perhaps
this might crow and the more it crows, the more difficult it will be to
tell people what Corona is.
Can you give an example for such descriptive names?
I like the idea of functional names but I just fail to see how this can
work in our case :-/
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
