forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [views] forrest:contracts - naming convention
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:16:29 GMT
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:23 -0700, Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> > Diwaker asked me once about the naming conventions the contracts should
> > follow. I believe I never gave you an answer.
> 
> no problemas :)

:)

> 
> > Now leather-dev is based on this contracts. I reckon you can remember
> > the discussion about leather/scale-dev where we agreed that the designer
> > needs design hooks (absolute positioning is too limiting). ...and the
> > work on views finally started. ;-)
> 
> I agree. However, I think we should clearly identify *who* is it that
> we are targeting the contracts for? Note that the end-user never knows
> about contracts. It is the skin designer who has to know the
> contracts. I am with you in setting up a standard for naming
> conventions, but I think the naming should reflect the content *in
> context* of the designer.

You are right.

> 
> > For example I want to rename "pdf-link" to "content-pdf" because it
> > describes better the functionality of the contract. Now writing this
> > line I realized that "content-main-pdf" would describe this contract
> > even better, because the outcome pressing the link will be the main
> > content in pdf-format.
> 
> To make my point clear, consider the same pdf-link example. As a skin
> designer, I need to know what this contract will do for me. Now this
> particular contract will put a _link_ to the _pdf_. When I'm designing
> the skin, that is more important to me, than knowing that when the
> link is pressed, the main content opens up in PDF -- that is something
> for the end-user.
> 
> So IMHO, pdf-link is actually a good name, because it says exactly
> what it does -- "if you include me in your view, i will output a link
> to the pdf"
> 

I agree again with a small addition. The idea is that contracts are
within groups:
- branding
- nav
- search
- content
- siteinfo

That makes it easier to group the contracts by this functionalities and
adding new contracts based on the above mentioned categories. Using your
input I recommend:
content-pdf-link

The advantage I see is that the designer nows that he can choose from
this categories and directly knows what kind of contract he will get in
return. I do not know whether I can explain it right, keep on throwing
your thoughts.

> > I need some input about renaming the contracts to follow the simple rule
> > "contract name expresses the functional output of the contract"
> 
> Precisely. The "pdf-link" contract's functionality is generating a
> link to the pdf. Just my 2 cents :)
> 

:) ...as skin designer I reckon it would be better to know:
The "content-pdf-link" contract's functionality is generating a link to
the content in pdf. 

> But I'm not too picky about names. If there is a consensus on any one
> naming scheme, I'm mostly fine with it.
> 

Nothing is written in stone yet, we are still <1.0 and we need a
continuous development on this scheme.

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


Mime
View raw message