Re: [Gzz] Re: On view_split--tjl

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 08:27:11PM +0100, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
>  
>
> > So either we should change the above to 'gzz.view.util', or make 
> > 'gzz.vob.util' into 'gzz.vob.impl' and 'gzz.vob.impl' into something 
> > else, or we should come up with something else entirely ;-)
> >    
>
> Cellviews are not really IMO utils.

Hm... yes. Vobs can be seen as utils in the sense that you use a bunch 
of them to implement a view, or if you don't want that, you can make 
your own (vobs)... they're not infrastructure. The same doesn't apply to 
views. But somehow, I feel that 'impl' suggests 'implementation of 
infrastructure interfaces' (like VobScene)... somewhat in the sense of, 
"one default implementation for each interface," which is something that 
doesn't make sense with views...

Dunno. Ok, for the moment I don't have an alternative to your proposed 
naming structure, so let's do that if nobody comes up with something better.

(Hmmm... maybe gzz.vob.vobs and gzz.view.views after all? At least this 
would be consistent and understandable...)

> > Also, we need an own package for the bindings stuff. 'gzz.actions' or 
> > 'gzz.bindings' or 'gzz.client.actions' or 'gzz.client.bindings'?
> >    
>
> Tough call.
>  

Yep... Hm, I think I'd prefer 'gzz.client.bindings' for now, and then 
later separate this into:

gzz.client.bindings
The objects that bind keys/events to actions
gzz.actions
The actions themselves (can also be invoked through menus)

- Benja