For context when making suggestions, there's a rough before/after
picture here:
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/ParcelFlatteningProposal
'pim' is intended to be the location for pim related schema -- more
concise than 'contentmodel'. :) Alec, are you arguing that the modules
defining the pim schema should live in one big package with everything else?
Cheers,
Katie
Alec Flett wrote:
On a related note, why osaf.pim? why not just "chandler"? I'm guessing
the argument is that you could reuse these objects outside of chandler,
which seems nice.. though even the osaf prefix seems superfluous to me..
So on a related note, I'd like to propose some future renames after
you're done with this one
(and maybe you've already thought about this)
osaf.views.main -> chandler (in this case, this really is the chandler
product)
osaf.framework.blocks -> cpia or cpia.blocks (break cpia out from being
a chandler-only thing)
osaf.framework.attributeEditors -> cpia.attributeEditors (or
cpia.attributeeditors?)
osaf.framework.twisted -> chandler.twisted
osaf.framework.scripting -> cpia.script
osaf.app -> chandler
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
