Hi! On 01/02/2008 10:31 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tobias Schlitt wrote:
>> [ ] +1 (yes, rename it to "converter") >> [ ] 0 (whatever) >> [ ] -1 (no, "conversion" is better, keep it that way) > It needs to be a noun, so "convertor" - I don't think it's too useful to > rename all other occurences though - if they even exist. I think "converter" is the correct term, not "convertor". >> Beside that, I wonder if ezcPersistentObjectPropertyConverter (and as >> it's implementation ezcPersistentObjectPropertyDateTimeConverter) aren't >> a bit toooo long names. Maybe we can reduce that to something like >> ezcPersistentPropertyConverter? > We could do that indeed, as long as we keep starting with > "ezcPersistent". Ok, I think the name "ezcPersistentPropertyConverter" is reasonably good. I'll go for the renaming then. Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
