I see your point about multiplicity. For the moment, I'm calling it js_browser_client, and I'll make the name more distinctive once I'm clearer about what other variations are likely to show up.
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:07 -0500, Glen Mazza wrote: > Sounds like a good idea. js_rhino_import? But I don't really care > about the name. > > But before you call your new sample js_client, do you plan on have two > or three samples, each of which reasonably could be called js_client? > If so, you might want to have a more descriptive name. If not, > js_client is cool. > > Glen > > Am Dienstag, den 11.12.2007, 20:18 -0500 schrieb Benson Margulies: > > We have a sample named 'js_client'. It's a sample of pulling the regular > > CXF client from Java into Rhino using Rhino's import technology. > > > > I would propose to rename it. It seems to me that most people would > > expect 'javascript in the browser' when they see just plain js. > > > > However, if others prefer to leave this name alone, please help me out > > and suggest a new name for the sample of generated js. > > > > > > > > >
