Related thoughts about names and packages: 1. I think the bead classes should be organized better. There’s currently controllers, layouts and models packages. There should be views, behaviors, appearances, etc. 2. I’m not sure that the “html” package in Basic is the right name. “basic” seems much more appropriate to me as it’s really not HTML specific and there’s no guarantee in the components as to which html element is actually used. 3. It also might be time to move code around in the different swcs. “core” in the Basic package might belong in Core rather than Basic. “svg” should probably be moved into an SVG package, etc.
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was thinking a bit about naming. A few points to ponder: > > 1. If anything it should mention Group rather than Container, because > anything subclassing GroupBase should work. > 2. Maybe mentioning the “holder” type is just confusing. Maybe > SingleSelectionBead? > 3. This got me thinking about bead names in general: > > I’m wondering if bead names should be more explicit about their function? We > already have view beads with a suffix of View, controllers with a suffix of > Controller, models with a suffix of Model and Layout for layout. What about > SingleSelectionBehavior? Some suffixes might be: Behavior, Appearance, > Measurement. Basically, I’m suggesting that the bead names should describe > what category they fit into. We can also drop the word “Bead” from them. > > Thoughts? > >> On Dec 6, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com >> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> It is. >> >> Possibly it could use a better name? >> >>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote: >>> >>> There probably shouldn't have been a need for SingleSelectionContainerBead >>> unless it is an aggregation of SingleSelectionModelBead and >>> SingleSelectionControllerBead. >> >
