Component clarification

[Daniel van Vugt]

I am "weakly for core", but have a counter-offer...

Why do we need to name this component at all? What if we put all 
clearly-defined server components in:

     mir::server::COMPONENT::

And then any server-specific logic that doesn't have an obvious 
component name to live in can go in:

     mir::server::

All this talk of data models is an over-complication, I feel. Let's just 
call it what it is; server. And any components which can be clearly 
defined in themselves can still be named under that.


On 18/11/13 18:27, 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?
>