Hi,

> Le 29 nov. 2016 à 08:45, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> On 29 Nov 2016, at 00:00, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com 
>> <mailto:b...@openinworld.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi, 
>> 
>>> On 28 Nov 2016, at 21:32, stepharo <steph...@free.fr 
>>> <mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> - Could we rename FastTable into Table?
>> 
>> not for Pharo 6 but Pharo 7 yes… in fact, I think it should be called 
>> TableMorph.
>> (Also we need to refactor a lot, to eliminate the FT prefix, etc.)
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Then I miss an important design point. Why datasource returns Morph?
>>> I do not get get why a data source should return UI element. To me it 
>>> violates layers.
>> 
>> no, because that’s its purpose: to provide the table with the cell elements 
>> (which are by definition Morphs… any kind of morphs). 
>> a TableDataSource is not a spec, is the provider of cells.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> so maybe TableCellSource / TableCellProvider ?
> 
> I’m not against changing its name, in general the family of names are 
> “DataSource”, “Store”, etc. so I imagine that “Provider” fits (even if I tend 
> to hate names style “Manager”, “Factory”, “Provider”, because there are too 
> generic… sometimes is that what you have :P)
> But is not just a “cell provider”, it does something more, is a general model 
> of the TableMorph: it provides cells, headers and interaction capabilities 
> (like drag&drop)… so it is more like a "table data provider”, 
> TableDataSource, TableStore, TableProvider are then better names, IMO… 
> 
> this changes will impact Pharo 7… is very good that we can have a discussion 
> like this now, that we have the time to reach a consensus :)

To me, the name datasource is misleading in this case. I would expect to find 
an abstraction that takes data from a database, or a file or  in-memory object, 
etc.
yes, something like TableCellSource or TableCellProvider is more intention 
revealing.

Christophe

Reply via email to