Both. We'll have AgaviModel instead of Model, AgaviController instead of Controller etc. I know that this means some work to those who are already using the framework, but it's worth the effort, since otherwise, we are very likely to collide with existing class names.
I expect Mojavi 4 to be quite different from Mojavi3/Agavi. At least I didn't notice anyone mentioning that BC has to be maintained ;) - David > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Dell > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:28 AM > To: Agavi Development > Subject: Re: [agavi-dev] Next Agavi release > > Hi David, > > I'm just starting a new project and I plan to use agavi. See my remark > below: > > David Zülke wrote: > >2) Give all classes an "Agavi" prefix to avoid name clashes. This will > >include all classes that are shipped with the framework > > > Are these for internal classes, or classes that may be used by a project > using agavi, or both? If they are inteface classes, wouldn't it make > more sense to adopt a mojavi prefix for future compatibility? Or is > Mojavi 4 going to so different, that it wouldn't matter? > > I'm just thinking in terms of where I'll be down the road if I use agavi > 1.0 as my framework. > > Thanks for your consideration. > > Regards, > John Dell > _______________________________________________ > agavi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev _______________________________________________ agavi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev
