I like that idea. At least it gets us started down the path towards the desired destination.
Ben On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:33:52PM -0400, Erik Hatcher wrote: > Let's be pragmatic, though. It would be rude to simply remove things > just to clean up naming and break things for no strong technical > reason. I hate the I* names myself, as does Howard these days. An > intermediate step would be to put extend those interfaces with names we > like, deprecate the I* interfaces, and remove them in the subsequent > release (or something like that). > > Erik > > > > On Apr 21, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Hensley, Richard wrote: > > >Actually, last time I checked in with the committers, all of the I's in > >the interfaces were being removed. In my opinion a good thing, reminds > >me to much of my COM days and makes me twitch. > > > > > > _____ > > > >From: Tapestry Forum User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:51 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much > > > > > > > >I would like "I" prefix to go in the interface name. As a user of > >Tapestry, why should I care if RequestCycle is an interface or class > >(implementation). > > > > > > > >Sent using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com) Read this topic > >online > >here: http://www.tapestryforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=1549#1549 > ><http://www.tapestryforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=1549#1549> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
