This is exactly wht I wanted to say in my previous post but my post was not phrased as good.
I also think the abstract/real hierarchy is a good idea. My last point would be about the library that is used. Is it JavaCscript or something more specific? Cheers, Nadim. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This has been one of the best examples I've seen on the difficulties of > module naming. Many of the suggestions have valid reasons, and precidence > to back up the theory. > > Seems like a really good example of a module that could benifit from meta > data, and multi-category placement. If it weren't for existing categories, > and still needed a category structure, I'd personally think something like > the following would be more suitable: > UI::ToolTip > With UI::ToolTip::HTML::JavaScript implementing a UI::ToolTip class. > > It seems that the problem is that you could have ToolTip's implemented for > an HTML, or SVG, or Java, or GTK, or whatever type of display toolkit, and > they could be implemented using some other technology like JavaScript, > CSS, etc. Personally, I'm more a fan of listing the interface the tooltip > applies to first. If I were looking for a ToolTip module for GTK, I'd > expect to find GTK::ToolTip or ToolTip::GTK, not Python::ToolTip::GTK or > JavaScript::ToolTip::GTK. > But, to each his own. > > This has been an interesting thread. My vote's for "HTML::ToolTip". If > possible, it'd be nice if it was an abstract class, and > HTML::ToolTip::Javascript was an implementation of that class. > > -- > Josh I. >
