Just to be clear, I would like to see other people vote also for this naming convention thing. At the moment, only Gili and I have outed our opinions. Is our renaming wish *that* hard we want to postpone RC1 and consequently 1.0?
> just because sun does something doesn't mean it is a best practice! True. Apple consistently uses iFoo... Apple is cool, so maybe IFoo is also cool? >-) > > if you're going to have meaningless names, make it short is what i > thouhg.... anyway, if we're getting rid of the IInterfaceName > pattern, i think SerializableModel at least has the potential to > convey that the model wraps a Serializable object. if that's not > quite right, we can surely find something better. even ObjectModel or > NonDetachableModel is better than "DefaultModel". what does that mean? SerializableModel sounds good. Or NonDetachableModel sounds better. But I'm also simpathetic for your arguments, shorter is better. I think the more a name shows intent, the better. Model is very vague at best, as is DefaultModel, or StandardModel, or ModelImpl. But if there are good reasons to keep on using IModel/Model then I won't be coming back to change that. I just want it to be a concious choice, which we all agree upon. Martijn ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by Demarc: A global provider of Threat Management Solutions. Download our HomeAdmin security software for free today! http://www.demarc.com/info/Sentarus/hamr30 _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
