On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 18:19, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > Bruno Dumon <bruno <at> outerthought.org> writes: > > > I'm wondering if there is some logic behind why, while most of the time > > woody has been renamed to "forms", sometimes it got renamed to just > > "form". > > > > For example: > > * FormTemplateTransformer instead of FormsTemplateTransformer > > * "form" for the i18n catalogue name instead of "forms" > > > > I find this rather confusing. > > It was me and it was by intention. For me names like FormsMessages or > FormsGenerator sounded strange. Furthermore after the renaming of all occurences > of Woody to Forms we had inconsistences at that places where we had already Form > in the woody block, e.g. FormContext, FormManager vs. FormsGenerator and so on > (an extreme example was MakeFormAction vs. AbstractFormsAction).
I find MakeFormAction vs AbstractFormsAction perfectly logical. The first one makes a Form instance, while the second one is the base action for actions related to the "Forms" project. If there is any confusion, it is caused by naming a project about forms just Forms. (updating the documentation will be even harder: instead of talking about a Woody Form object, we'll now have to talk about a Forms Form object) > So I renamed > everything to Form or form instead of Forms and forms. In my logic, this is wrong, because the project is called "Forms", and things like the FormsMessages are about the whole of Forms, not just about a Form. (if this sentence is confusing, try substituting Forms by Woody) For me, the word Form refers to a form instance object. > Only the package,the > block and the namespaces have still forms inside. > > Do I have forgotten something to change or is even the above described "logic" > to confusing? To me it is. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
