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.
I see your point abstract vs. instance.
If there is any confusion, it is caused by naming a project about forms just Forms.
Indeed this is the cause, but it was voted on. For better "feeling" of the names I changed them from abstract to instance names. "Forms" is just bad as abstract term.
(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)
I had this problem already when reviewing JavaDoc.
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)
Of course this works with Woody as Woody is good as an abstract term, but not "Forms".
For me, the word Form refers to a form instance object.
Me too.
So what to do?
Joerg
