then come up with a better name for IWrapModel.getNestedModel(), replace
nested with a variation of wrap, otherwise it is pretty inconsistent
-igor
On 4/5/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> > >
> >
>
