Re: Organising the xwt namespace

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 09:26  PM, Charles Goodwin wrote:
> ability is the only one of those that works, and I'm not too keen.  
> 'common'
> (as in common behaviour) or 'shared' (which we use at the moment) are
> preferrable to this.

'common' is better than 'ability', but shared is a little too general.

What about 'skill'? It's short, and then we can talk about what skills 
a particular widget has.

> Btw, I'm not sure on how having xwt.widgets / xwt.widgets.lib vs 
> xwt.widgets
> / xwt.lib would be affected by xwt.overlay() - could you run this by me
> please? :)

In the context, I assume you mean xwt.lib vs. xwt.theme.lib.

I just like having this really well defined. When I first started on 
the widget library, we had:

xwt.standard.lib.focusable
org.xwt.themes.monopoly.lib.focusable

lib was being overridden by its theme to provide functionality straight 
into the lib namespace. If we keep things xwt.theme.lib, it's opens the 
design *possibility* of someone overlaying it, and that would be bad. 
Bad, in a 'my head is spinning too fast for my neck' kind of way.

Personally, it's not just the possibility, but the psychology of the 
choice. As xwt.theme.lib is a member of the set xwt.theme, I feel that 
it's naturally designed to be overlayed with the rest of xwt.theme, 
which is not our design goal.

And of course, xwt.lib is less typing. :)

Yes, I realise how minute all of these arguments are, but it's a pretty 
minute point of discussion.

d


_______________________________________________
http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/dev