Moving classes into core-implementations

Jeff Mitchell mitchell at kde.org
Tue Mar 30 00:47:39 CEST 2010


On 3/29/2010 6:13 PM, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> I think core-implementations would be better renamed to
> implementations. (and maybe core to interfaces?  thats really what it
> breaks down to.. but thats another debate).

I asked the available people on IRC for naming suggestions and at the
time core-implementations was the popular vote. (I think we had 5 yeahs
and no nays.)

At this point it could easily be changed if we wanted, just a few
find+sed commands.

However, the naming of "core" was to indicate that these are the core
interfaces that should be available to any version of Amarok (on any
platform or with any UI). IOW, the necessary set of base classes for the
rest of Amarok. Then the different platforms could choose the
implementations that make sense to compile in.

> Naming it
> core-implementations makes it seem like there's a strong connection to
> core, and while it inherits from the interfaces in core, it isn't
> necessarily tied tight enough to merit being a "core-implementation"

The classes in core-implementations implement the interfaces in core.
Not sure how much stronger you want.

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20100329/3ce8d712/attachment-0001.sig 


More information about the Amarok-devel mailing list