How about "tapestry"? It's obvious and intuitive.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:33:38 +0100, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What about "infra" ? It's smaller and shouldn't confuse anyone since
it's not that big of a name change.
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
These are some good suggestions.
I like "core" and "system" better than "infrastructure".
I'm a little nervous about "core" in that it seems to have some
relationship to tapestry-core or the core component library. It may
not be obvious that "core:Foo" may come from some other module
entirely.
Thoughts / suggestions?
On 3/9/07, liigo (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote:
shorten the name of "infrastructure", or rename it
--------------------------------------------------
Key: TAPESTRY-1335
URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-1335
Project: Tapestry
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: tapestry-core
Affects Versions: 5.0.3
Reporter: liigo
Priority: Trivial
the name of "infrastructure" is too long. Is the
"infrastracture:request" a shorter or easy name than
"service:tapestry.request"? and people maybe make typo error between
times when typing "infrastructrue"(i just made a typo, do you find
it?).
Rename "infrastructure" to "system"? "core"? "tapestry"? "t5"? or
even "t"? (I like "t:request")
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
