Re: [POLL] Component and ComponentBase

[Paul Smith]

I think what Mark was saying was correct, in that the base/abstract 
class could end up supporting more than just that the *Aware interface, 
so the name of the base class should not be tied to one specific 
interface name.  ComponentBase is not a bad choice if it wasn't for the 
fact that there is so many things named with Component these days, and 
given this is strictly related to Logging components it might benefit 
from a tighter name.

So I'm only on the - side of something starting with Component* because 
that would make finding it in Open Type a little harder than I would 
like.  :D (probably not a very good reason I know).

cheers,
Paul Smith
Ceki G�lc� wrote:
At 09:04 PM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
+1 too, that's a nice specific name.   Still not too happy with 
ComponentBase though.  LoggingComponentBase?

How about LRAwareBase?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]