Component clarification

Alan Griffiths alan.griffiths at canonical.com
Tue Nov 19 14:20:29 UTC 2013


On 19/11/13 14:18, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> I think the natural domain name is "scene".
>
> It was the first suggestion and was only doubted because we've it
> misinterpreted as implying that it /is a/ scenegraph (rather than /has
> a/ scenegraph).

we've *seen* it misinterpreted

>
> In the absence of a clearer, natural name I think we should go with
> "scene" and educate people that think it is synonymous with "scenegraph".
>
> On 19/11/13 01:38, Kevin DuBois wrote:
>> 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
>> mir::diaroma?
>>
>> 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 preference.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Alexandros Frantzis
>> <alexandros.frantzis at canonical.com
>> <mailto:alexandros.frantzis at canonical.com>> 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 lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
>>     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>>
>>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/attachments/20131119/a4bbbe67/attachment.html>


More information about the Mir-devel mailing list