I was thinking a bit about naming. A few points to ponder: 1. If anything it should mention Group rather than Container, because anything subclassing GroupBase should work. 2. Maybe mentioning the “holder” type is just confusing. Maybe SingleSelectionBead? 3. This got me thinking about bead names in general:
I’m wondering if bead names should be more explicit about their function? We already have view beads with a suffix of View, controllers with a suffix of Controller, models with a suffix of Model and Layout for layout. What about SingleSelectionBehavior? Some suffixes might be: Behavior, Appearance, Measurement. Basically, I’m suggesting that the bead names should describe what category they fit into. We can also drop the word “Bead” from them. Thoughts? > On Dec 6, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is. > > Possibly it could use a better name? > >> On Dec 6, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> There probably shouldn't have been a need for SingleSelectionContainerBead >> unless it is an aggregation of SingleSelectionModelBead and >> SingleSelectionControllerBead. >
