I think that lowercase is the right thing for "public" API's. I can appreciate that in a large system it is helpful to have more legible names, and you will see that reflected in OL implementation. Camel-casing is used extensively in the LFC, but the public API's are lowercase. You could certainly carry this over to components.
--- I wonder if it would be at all beneficial to allow the LZX programmer to have a different name for his class and the tag that it defines, as we do in the LFC (for instance, the <view> tag is defined by a class named LzView). Perhaps that would just be confusing. On 2010-01-29, at 18:12, Antun Karlovac wrote: > It sounds like I should use the traditional OL convention: > > classname attributename eventname methodName > > -Antun > > On 1/26/10 10:06 AM, P T Withington wrote: >> OpenLaszlo is XML, and XML is case-sensitive. Because of history (HTML, >> case-insensitive, but usually written lowercase), we chose to use lower-case >> for the OpenLaszlo core API's. I don't see this changing as it would be a >> massive, mostly gratuitous API change. The existing components suite >> follows this model for the most part. We are planning on revising our >> components and could revisit this decision, but I don't see any compelling >> reason to do so. Personally, I find the all lower-case style in LZX to be >> easy on the eye. Even more so when compare to the namespace "screech" names >> in Flex (:P). >> >> Obviously, OpenLaszlo applications can choose any naming scheme that works >> well for them. Personally, I would be concerned that it would be an >> impediment to development if I have to remember whether an attribute is a >> core attribute, a component attribute, or one of my own attributes to decide >> the proper casing. Perhaps with the right IDE this is not a problem. >> >> My 2p. >>
