So it was IWrapModel, which wasn't a great name. But I find the 'wrap'
part to be natural actually, and now that I read Johan's comment,
INestedModelContainer sounds like it could be a component. I see that
IModelWrapper is still in SVN (should be deleted). I actually like
that name better than INestedModelContainer.
Eelco
On 4/5/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the idea was to standardize our jargon. we use "nested" and "wrap" all over
the place, it is better to be consistent and only use one or the other.
tbh i dont like nested either, but i couldnt come up with anything better
myself. the closest i came is "delegate"
so you would have
IWrapModel->IDelegatingModel { IModel getDelegete(); }
createAssignmentDelegate, createInheritanceDelegate, etc
i dont know if i like that more or less
-igor
On 4/5/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm not very fond of that name either. But I can't think of
> anything better so far. Btw. we have AbstractWrapModel implements
> INestedModelContainer, which is not very consistent.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 4/5/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because that looks a lot like our XXXXContainers which are components
> > and INestedModelContainer is not a component but still a model.
> >
> > And IWrapModel was not only telling me that it wraps the model no it
> > also told me that it did wrap the component that was given by
> > public INestedModelContainer wrapOnInheritance(Component component)
> >
> > so you wrap the component in a model that again also wrapps the outer
> > model..
> >
> > johan
> >
>
