I think it was pretty clear from the thread that X and XClient is prefered when you have 2 way communication. In some cases, you have X which is the interface, XImpl which is the implementation, and XProxy for a proxy.
But yeah....I think Foo and FooClient is the way to go with Impl and Proxy if you need to have 2 versions of each (which I think you do). J On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Michael Nordman <micha...@google.com>wrote: > Doesn't sound like we have a consensus on naming yet? Many of the > suggestions are workable to me. > > FooClient | FooFrontend | FooIntf | FooConsumer > FooService | FooBackend | FooImpl | FooProvider > > I have a patch that is employing FooFrontend + FooBackend naming... > i'd be happy to change to something else... or not. > > I don't like 'proxy' to indicate one side or the other, because as > Jeremy said it doesn't indicate which side, there are proxies on both > sides to communicate with the other. > > My top two picks... > 1) FooFrontend + FooBackend > 2) FooClient + FooService >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
