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: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org
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]
