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
