Re: Bonobo 0.1 release plans.

[David Orme <david coconut-palm-software com>]

Elliot Lee wrote:

> I want to use GNOME::obj for lots of other stuff totally unrelated to
> bonobo or components, because the interface is useful as part of almost
> all CORBA interfaces, many of which shouldn't really be called components.
>
> <<Snip>>
> Yes "obj" is somewhat hard to pronounce, but there are easier words than
> "GNOME" to pronounce too :-)
>
> Other possible names:
>         BaseObject
>         StandardObject
>         ObjectControl
> etc. etc.

My two bits:

Bit 1: I agree with your reasoning for why GNOME::Component is less than ideal.
In addition, other class libraries (most notably Borland's Delphi/C++ Builder
class libraries) take the same view.

Bit 2: My personal preference is either GNOME::Obj or GNOME::Object.

On the others:

- BaseObject seems redundant and/or overly long to me.

- StandardObject also seems redundant.  ie: if all GNOME::Somethings have to
inherit from GNOME::StandardObject, then everything is a standard object.  But
if everything is a standard object, where are the nonstandard objects?

- Similarly, not all Bonoboo objects will be controls, some will be containers
and some with be both controls and containers, so ObjectControl seems needlessly
restrictive.


Here are a few other options for people to debate, courtesy of the WordPerfect
thesaurus:

GNOME::Entity                    (I kinda like this one)
GNOME::Item                      (Um.....)
GNOME::Doohickey                  :-)


Regards,

Dave Orme  (Gnome-filer)

--
David Orme                                       LINUX...
david@coconut-palm-software.com          ...it already goes there
http://www.coconut-palm-software.com               :-)