[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [platform-ui-dev] Component framework proposal version 1.0.4 available
|
Stefan Xenos wrote:
There's two problems with this.
1. The words "part" and "site" are currently associated with UI
concepts,
What UI concepts?
which would make the component framework seem to be tied to UI
extensions. Although I'm not fond of the UI connotations, changing
"container" to "site" could be done without conflict. IContainer
replaces the IWorkbenchPartSite, and there is no difference between an
IContainer that contains some UI and a any other container.
2. In the case of renaming /component/ -> /part/ there would be a
serious conflict. With the current terminology, a /part/ is a pluggable
bit of UI, and /component /is an executable extension with dependencies
and lifecycle. A view or editor is a part and a part is a component, but
not all components are parts. For example, a default interface
implementation is a component but not a part. In fact, the objects
created by any extension point that takes a "class" attribute would be
components but would rarely be parts. Calling all components parts would
leave us with no word to describe a pluggable bit of UI... and any
existing documentation that says something like "PartStack contains a
tabbed folder of parts" would leave people with the confusing impression
that they could insert some arbitrary class that implements
IErrorContext that was created through an extension point.
- Stefan
*John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA*
Sent by: platform-ui-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/10/2004 10:25 AM
Please respond to
platform-ui-dev
To
platform-ui-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
RE: [platform-ui-dev] Component framework proposal version 1.0.4 available
I have to agree with Randy's comment that the proposed terminology isn't
ideal. "component" and "container" are two heavily used words with lots
of existing meanings. We have similar problems with words like
"property" and "setting" - the definitions of the words are just so
general that they can mean just about anything. There are bound to be
vocabulary "collisions" with uses of those words in other components
(IContainer for example is already used in platform core). I think
Randy's suggestion of reusing the existing words "part" and "site" would
be better. These words are already well known to have that particular
meaning, so throwing away those words in favour of new ones just creates
confusion and requires the poor plug-in writers to learn yet another new
term for an existing concept.
