Notes from "Async and representation"

[Mark Gaiser]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 18 January 2014 01:11:54 Mark Gaiser wrote:
>>
>> I guess my arguments for going with the "Plasmoid" name rather then
>> "Applet" are just ignored then?
>> Sebas did gave "some" (few lines) explanation before my bunch of
>> arguments. Yet i still think "Plasmoid" would suit it better.
>
> I think the name got mentioned in this thread: Applet was the name already
> used in the C++ world, see [1]. So for anyone doing porting from a C++ applet
> to a QML applet, the name Applet will be more reasonable.
>
> Personally I think Applet is a way better name as it is more generic and
> people know what is meant with it, but Plasmoid is a domain specific name
> people have to know. In the same way I went for Switcher in KWin although our
> internal name is TabBox. The one is generic the other is domain specific (and
> yes my QML code was first TabBox, then I thought about it and renamed all of
> it). Of course Plasma already uses the name plasmoid in the API and honestly I
> think that this is a mistake in the API.
>
> Cheers
> Martin

But your case to go for Switcher rather then TabBox is logical. Or to
me it is :)
The name "KWin.Switcher" tells me what it's going to do so it's chosen wisely.

The name "Applet" doesn't tell me one thing. The name "Plasmoid" does.
Since plasmoids are those visible things on the plasma desktop, i'd
expect a plasmoid to be something visual on my desktop. Applet might
indeed be more generic, but it doesn't tell me if it will be visible
on the plasma desktop. Which it will most likely be! Thus i think
"Plasmoid" is the better name since the name alone will give you the
idea that it's something that will appear on the plasma desktop.

Or am i completely wrong now?