To this point, the only goals that have been recommended for this effort are those that I've noted below:
>> 1) Remove ambiguity wherever possible! There are a number of places >> where very similar names are used to refer to utterly different >> things. >> 2) As an aide removing ambiguity, consider outlawing or eliminating >> extremely generic names, or else establish a single way in which a >> given name will be used across Lift. Examples are Field, Info, Holder, >> etc. >> 3) Avoid making the name of the return type part of the name of the >> method. The types should tell the story as much as possible, except in >> the case where multiple methods varying only in return type would >> exist (illegal overloads) >> 4) Prefer Scala-style accessors and mutators. In general, the principle goal of this effort must be improving the clarity of the Lift API for both new adopters and for maintainers. We now have two days before the "goal discussion" closes. If anyone has any additional objectives they'd like to voice before this window closes, please do so now. I'd like to hold a vote on the proposals above as well as any other objectives folks may have tomorrow, so that any -1's can be ironed out before the 15th. Kris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
