I first want to acknowledge Piotr's concern about shuffling things around, but on the other hand, if we think we have a lot of beads now, I hope after several years we have 10x or 100x as many, so having good organization will help people find things.
I think we also need to consider that some beads are "aggregates". They are more than one bead combined together for some reason (ease of use, inlining code, etc). Are there other buckets we need to consider? I'm on the fence about whether we need to do this renaming. If we do it, do we want to get it done before the first Royale release? -Alex On 12/7/17, 9:31 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >Behavior would be something like: Password bead, SingleSelecttion, >Disabled, etc. >Appearance would be things like: DataGridLines, DisabledAlpha, Border, >Background, etc. > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What's a "behavior" and "appearance"? >> >> -Alex >> >> On 12/7/17, 1:39 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected] >><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Related thoughts about names and packages: >>> 1. I think the bead classes should be organized better. There’s >>>currently >>> controllers, layouts and models packages. There should be views, >>> behaviors, appearances, etc. >>> 2. I’m not sure that the “html” package in Basic is the right name. >>> “basic” seems much more appropriate to me as it’s really not HTML >>> specific and there’s no guarantee in the components as to which html >>> element is actually used. >>> 3. It also might be time to move code around in the different swcs. >>> “core” in the Basic package might belong in Core rather than Basic. >>>“svg” >>> should probably be moved into an SVG package, etc. >>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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]> >>>>>> <mailto:[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. >
