Component clarification

Kevin DuBois kevin.dubois at
Tue Nov 19 01:38:39 UTC 2013

I'm also slightly against 'core', just because people will think its more
important than it is

scene, model, and model_controller has connotations to me, maybe

Pretty unloaded word... To me, it means 3d objects put in a box for the
purposes of displaying. If no one supports that though, 'scene' would be my


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Alexandros Frantzis <
alexandros.frantzis at> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:27:31AM +0000, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> > This came up again with my resent proposal to move Session related state
> > to the "surfaces" component.
> >
> > On 25/10/13 15:22, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> > > I'm ok with "state & implementation code" changing from "surface" to
> > > "core". I'm sure others will weigh in.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that it says "semantic data model" but neither does
> > "surfaces". But what do folks think about "core"?
> >
> > Strongly For/Weakly For/Weakly Against/Strongly Against?
> I think the term "core" is at the same time too vague and too strong.
> It's too vague because it doesn't describe what the "core" component of
> mir contains. It's too strong because "core" forces us to think in terms
> of a special core component and other non-core components, which I don't
> think is appropriate for our architecture.
> My vote is on the stronger verge of "Weakly Against"; I am sure we could
> get used to it, but I think we can do better. Some alternatives
> mentioned on IRC:
> mir::scene
> mir:model
> mir::model_controller
> Thanks,
> Alexandros
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel at
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Mir-devel mailing list