> On 29 Nov 2016, at 09:58, Aliaksei Syrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > "DataSource" is responsible for providing visual elements that represent > items in a data set. > > I don't see how word "Store" fits here, because DataSource does not store > anything. DataSource is also not the best name since it is not a data source > itself. > An object that is now called DataSource, basically just knows a single > function that from mathematical point of view can be defined as follows: > f: Object -> Morph . You see, it is a mapping, not a souse or store.
Store != Storage. A store is a place where you go to get stuff (same as FileSystem stores: they give you access to different filesystems, as a FTDataSource gives you access to different data structures) :) In Gtk3, you have GtkListView, and GtkListStore, for example. And DataSource is another stuff in Cocoa, from where I borrowed the design: https://developer.apple.com/reference/appkit/nstableviewdatasource <https://developer.apple.com/reference/appkit/nstableviewdatasource> So… I still rest my argument. Anyway… we will NEVER reach a 100% agreement. We just need to go with what fits better current design/general idea. Esteban > > Cheers, > Alex > > On 29 November 2016 at 09:44, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 2016-11-29 9:35 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> yes, something like TableCellSource or TableCellProvider is more intention >> revealing. > > No, because is not *just* a cell provider. > TableDataSource, TableStore, TableProvider, yes. > > I kind of like “TableStore”. > > And if we have TableMorph then this guy should be TableMorphStore IMO. >
