Re: Better name for LWP

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul Schinder: "Re: Comments on LWP from a Mac user"
• Previous message: Marc Hedlund: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: Gisle Aas: "Better name for LWP"

> From: Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
> 
> >> Combining Tim's message and the LWP:: layout (one possibility):
> >> 
> >> HTTP::
> >> ::Base
> >
> >This is ::Message, isn't??
> 
> Yes, ::Base was Tim's phrasing.  HTTP::Message is probably better.
> 
I tend to use ::Base only where a class is specifically designed to act
as a base class (for other classes to inherit from). This implies that
the class captures the 'entire raw essence' of the topic which it the
base class (HTTP in this case).

It should certainly _not_ be used as just a default suffix for a nested
module when nothing better can be thought of!

> >I am positive to a new organisation if it really makes it easier to share 
> >code, but then we have to get it right.  The organisation you propose might 
> >make it clearer that the library is based on HTTP style communication, and 
> >should have miminal impact on most users of the library (assuming we don't 
> >rename LWP to WWW).
> 
> Again, it sounds like we are in general agreement.
> 
Ditto.

> Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
> 
Tim. 

• Next message: Paul Schinder: "Re: Comments on LWP from a Mac user"
• Previous message: Marc Hedlund: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: Gisle Aas: "Better name for LWP"