Re: frysk.gui -> frysk.gnome ;; /usr/bin/frysk -> /usr/bin/frysk-gnome

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at redhat dot com>]

Kris Van Hees wrote:
> To be slightly pedantic, why not use frysk.ui.gnome and frysk.ui.cli or
> similar designations?  Since frysk features both a command line
> interface and a graphical interface, it would make sense to organize
> them both under a common user interface parent.  That also introduces a
> perfect place in the hierarchy for abstract UI features (frysk.ui).
>
>   
Or frysk.ui.gnome, frysk.ui.hpd, frysk,ui.eclipse, and frysk.ui.util?  
I've found keeping the hierarchy relatively flat gives a longer shelf 
life, and, for instance, in the case of HPD is it a user interface or a 
component used to build a user interface?

Andrew

PS: UI developers will happily point out that both "CLI" and "GUI" are 
bad :-)

> You might also consider actually going with frysk.ui.gui.gnome (though
> you might not like long classnames - I am not a fan of them but they do
> have their uses in terms of namespace clarity) given that while the
> current GUI is implemented using GNOME, there is no reason why an
> alternative couldn't be implemented based on any other graphical
> toolkit.
>
> 	Cheers,
> 	Kris
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:55:39AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>   
> > Hello,
> >
> > The use of "gui" in the frysk name space has been a wart for about as 
> > long as it has been there :-)  It's the interface, implemented using 
> > GNOME and not "the graphical user interface".
> >
> > These two renames will help to clarify that.  (No, I'd not suggest 
> > changing frysk-gui :-).
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >