Re: [Modeling-users] ModelMasons refactored

[Jerome K. <Jer...@fi...>]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:51:46PM +0200, Sebastien Bigaret wrote:
>=20
> > as my package name is mortal.Objects, you can see that Base class
> > are cleary separated from the class you work on.=20
>=20
> Ok, seems reasonable.

Yeah :)=20

=20
> Mario wrote:
> > Just a minor comment, w.r.t. naming of the generated files/classes.
> > I feel that:
> >=20
> > a) "Base" is probably not the best name extension to use, as it has
> > a well-known generic meaning, and in addition it says nothing about
> > the "volatility" of these generated files/classes. Better names would
> > be something like "Auto" or "Gen" or "mdl" or "pom" or "morfy" ...
>=20
> Reasonable too. What about 'Autogen'? Since we're going this way I gues=
s
> that models (xml/py) should be moved to that directory too, so that
> everything that is overwritten when generating the code clearly falls i=
n
> the dedicated directory.

Hum I want to maintain a reference to the fact that this came from the=20
modeling. Cause i use some ORB here and it generate a lot of code too=20
so 'Autogen' hurt me a little . (same in glade too)=20
I prefer the previous one 'Mdl' or something else.=20
=20

> Mario> b) It is unnecessarily repeated -- what is the point of naming
> Mario> all the classes in the "Base" sub-package also with "Base"?
> Mario> Wouldn't it be more convenient to name only the sub-package? E.g=
.
>        [...]
>=20
> No problem; since we forget about 'Base' as a package it's a nonsense t=
o
> keep it here.


Hum i'm not really clear about this, but i think this can generated
namespace colision . mainly in the 'working' module=20