Re: [picocontainer-dev] package renaming

>> Paul Hammant wrote on Monday, May 21, 2007 7:37 AM:
>> [snip]
>>> I'm also keen to do renames.  With Pete in the bar on Friday, we
>>> agreed on ....
>>>    MutablePicoContainer becomes PicoContainer
>>>
>>> But not on...
>>>
>>>    PicoContainer becomes 'Components'
>>>
>>> ComponentSet ?
>>> ComponentList ?
>> ComponentProvider ?
>> PicoProvider ?
>> ComponentLocator ?
>> PicoLocator ?
>
> ImmutablePicoContainer?
>
> I'd like to understand the full usecase for the rename.
>

I want to change things in the 2.x codeline to

   NanoContainer extends PicoContainer extends X

NanoContianer is as is today in the 2.x codeline.
PicoContainer is MutablePicoContainer renamed
X is the renamed PicoContainer and is no operations that would permit  
explicit change.  Its a read only set that can perform invisible  
instantiation.

The rationale is about shortening names or 'dumbing down' names.   
ImmuatblePicoContainer ain't in that direction ;-)


> Is it because most people end up using MutablePC?  Not so, IMO,  
> because if used with Nano, it the opposite and people will mostly  
> use PC.
>
> The other possibility is to drop the distinction between PC and MPC  
> and only have a method to create an unmodifyable PC, just like is  
> done in Collections.  So the unmodifyable PC is a simply PC in  
> which the register methods throw exceptions.
>

I really don't want the exception wielding form :) its inelegant.

- Paul





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email