On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
>
> Components / Extended Templates framework will be added to Struts
> shortly.
>
> It is now the last chance to rename this framework if necessary.
>
> Primary idea of the framework was to allow building of JSP pages by
> assembling reusable pieces of code, called blocks or components. One of
> the aims is to provide a library of easily reusable components (like
> standard layouts, but also reusable menus, common login form, shopping
> card, ...).
> Templating mechanism is naturally done with the framework, but
> framework can also provide a starting point for reusable components.
>
> So what's wrong with name "components" ? Component is a broad term in
> English, and it may be confusing when people talk about Struts
> components in general. So maybe we should change actual Components
> framework name.
>
> Why not renaming "Components" to "templates" ? Framework allow more
> than templating, If we call it "templates", I am afraid that people
> identify framework
> with only the template mechanism, missing the ability to define reusable
> piece of pages. Also, this would break the actual templates
> implementation.
>
> After discussions with Ted Husted, we propose following alternatives
> :
>
Note: you can't use a dash in Java package names :-(
> Framework name package name
> JSP pieces / Extended Templates
> (as a play on Java Faces ;-) jsp-pieces or pieces
> JSP Blocks jsp-blocks or blocks
> Dynamic Templates templates
>
> My preference goes to (JSP pieces / Extended Templates), jsp-pieces.
>
> I need your opinion on this renaming :
>
> * Do we really need to do it ? (A lot of peoples already use
> components. This could lead to troubles)
I think we do. Although we'll strive for backwards compatibility, the
fact that it's getting integrated as a first-class part of Struts is bound
to cause some sorts of incompatibilities. Having a name change (and
continuing to support the stand-alone library for Struts 1.0 users) will
reduce confusion in the long run.
> * Which name do you prefer / propose ?
>
Of the presented names, I like "pieces" the best. The "blocks" term has
pretty definite connotations, at least for Java programmers :-).
Other alternatives to think about:
* "layouts" (although there was a separate "layouts" proposal
a while back that might also be usefully integrated)
* "models" (although it's another really broad term)
* "patterns" (same issue, but closer to the intent?)
* "joists" (more whimsical, fitting the "Struts" theme, but
doesn't really say anything about what it does :-)
> Cedric
>
>
Craig
