Hello Cedric,
+1 to stay at 'components' name.
Components is not better name againts blocks & pieces - all this names
equal, for my mind. But 'components' name is used now and this is
main reason to not change it to the new names.
Wednesday, June 27, 2001, 8:49:58 PM, you wrote:
CD> Components / Extended Templates framework will be added to Struts
CD> shortly.
CD> It is now the last chance to rename this framework if necessary.
CD> Primary idea of the framework was to allow building of JSP pages by
CD> assembling reusable pieces of code, called blocks or components. One of
CD> the aims is to provide a library of easily reusable components (like
CD> standard layouts, but also reusable menus, common login form, shopping
CD> card, ...).
CD> Templating mechanism is naturally done with the framework, but
CD> framework can also provide a starting point for reusable components.
CD> So what's wrong with name "components" ? Component is a broad term in
CD> English, and it may be confusing when people talk about Struts
CD> components in general. So maybe we should change actual Components
CD> framework name.
CD> Why not renaming "Components" to "templates" ? Framework allow more
CD> than templating, If we call it "templates", I am afraid that people
CD> identify framework
CD> with only the template mechanism, missing the ability to define reusable
CD> piece of pages. Also, this would break the actual templates
CD> implementation.
CD> After discussions with Ted Husted, we propose following alternatives
CD> :
CD> Framework name package name
CD> JSP pieces / Extended Templates
CD> (as a play on Java Faces ;-) jsp-pieces or pieces
CD> JSP Blocks jsp-blocks or blocks
CD> Dynamic Templates templates
CD> My preference goes to (JSP pieces / Extended Templates), jsp-pieces.
CD> I need your opinion on this renaming :
CD> * Do we really need to do it ? (A lot of peoples already use
CD> components. This could lead to troubles)
CD> * Which name do you prefer / propose ?
CD> Cedric
--
Best regards,
Oleg mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
