Citát Yen-Ju Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Apr 6, 2005 11:56 PM, Banlu Kemiyatorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2005 12:26 PM, Yen-Ju Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am not saying name is not important. > > > I just say *at this stage*, it is not as important as the content. > > > > I agree with you, though I still want to know what prefix (eg. NS-) we > > should use, > > so I don't have to rename them later on. I'm currently using QS (Qing > > Shan) for garma > > components. > > > > I think it is impossible that the whole Etoile use the same prefix > because there are so many stuff inside. > Each component should have its own prefix, > for example, I use "LC" for LuceneKit. > The core component may use prefix "ET" (the old movie :), > another funny thing beside e-toilet. :D > (Just for fun, pleast don't be serious. :P) >
What about EK? It can be both - Etoile Kit or Environment Kit :o) Or just EN, to prevent that overused ?K prefix? I would prefer the last one: it is project-name independent and shows exactly where the classes of the framework(s) are: in an ENvironment. With this, the prefix will describe architectural level of the classes. Also I think that it should be considered whether other Etoile frameworks should not be: - included under the hood of a single etoile/environment framework - have same prefix In other words, whether the separate molarity is required or not, and if yes, then to what degree? Note that Foundation or AppKit are too large frameworks with many modules inside of them... (see diagrams under "Introduction" links on respective Cocoa documentation pages, for example). Stefan Urbanek -- http://stefan.agentfarms.net First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
