Re: [picocontainer-dev] Pico2.x: ComponentAdapter becomes Adapter ?

Michael Rimov wrote:

>>
>> and getComponentAdapter becomes getAdapter() etc
> 
> No, I'm not so interested in that particular rename because when you're
> dealing with ComponentAdapters directly (to me at least), you're doing
> advanced work, and the additional typing doesn't annoy me.

I agree - Paul is getting very "lazy" with his typing - maybe we should get him a secretary to do 
the coding for him, eh eh :-)

Honestly I think there is a limit to the benefit of shortening names, and it needs to be offset 
against readability.

If anything, we could create a package component and then have Adapter live in it.

org.picocontainer.component.Adapter

so we'd shift part of the name to the package.

> 
> That said, if we could consider my earlier idea of a ComponentAdapter with
> Factories, than ComponentAdapter might be better served as a
> "ComponentFactory" instead.
> 
> (Unfortunately, the whole 'adapter' name, while technically correct doesn't
> give newbies a clue as to what it is used for).

It's not really factory though, is it?

Also, it would get confused with the CAF.

Cheers


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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email