> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> sounds decent--but maybe we could do something better.
> Perhaps play on the messenger aspect (towncryer?)
>
> excalibur.system->excalibur.fortress
>
> I _really_ like that. Consider it a +1 from me.
>
-1
Still trying to figure out whether this is an April Fool's joke
that started two days ago, but I'd like to make a case for
boredom, three-piece suits (gray ones) propose:
excalibur.system -> excalibur.container
If people were bewildered by the size of Excalibur before it
was split up, just consider a newbie surfing in on the Avalon
site and shaving to pick a subproject between:
joust
robberbaron
fairmaiden
There is just no way that a newbie will be able to keep eveything
in their head:
"OK, so the Events in 'joust' go to the EventHandler that uses
the ComponentManager from... uh... <look in docs> 'fortress'..."
Repeat the above for the poor maintenance programmer. K3w1 names
are fine for entire projects where a descriptive name is either
unmanageable or ends up being not really descriptive due to the scope:
Excalibur -> LotsOfComponentsForAvalonFramework
But please do not extend this too far down the project hierarchy. It
makes the source code incomprehensible.
On another, more personal note, it will make it very difficult
for me to 'sell' Avalon internally: Having one cool codename is fine,
but if I were to list ten or more when briefing the CTO on what
I intend to do...
...I will be laughed out of the room.
...the Avalon project will get a 'geeks only' stamp on it.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
