> Just for clarity's sake, it took me a bit of staring to realize that there
> were 2 "CanonicalWindowManager" objects... and it might have been clearer if
> we had "StandardWindowManager" in src, and CanonicalWindowManager in examples
> maybe
There are several considerations to balance here and I'm not sure of the best resolution.
I'm not particularly fond of having duplicate code between shell and examples but that's what we decided on (for now).
As duplicate code is unusual I think there ought to be some strong suggestion of the existence of this duplication and corresponding names is one approach. How about this?
> Just for clarity's sake, it took me a bit of staring to realize that there wManager" objects... and it might have been clearer if Manager" in src, and CanonicalWindow Manager in examples
> were 2 "CanonicalWindo
> we had "StandardWindow
> maybe
There are several considerations to balance here and I'm not sure of the best resolution.
I'm not particularly fond of having duplicate code between shell and examples but that's what we decided on (for now).
As duplicate code is unusual I think there ought to be some strong suggestion of the existence of this duplication and corresponding names is one approach. How about this?
namespace shell { CanonicalWindow Manager, BasicWindowManager, CanonicalWindow ManagerPolicy, CanonicalSessio nInfo, CanonicalSurfac eInfo }
namespace examples { CanonicalWindow ManagerCopy, BasicWindowMana gerCopy, CanonicalWindow ManagerPolicyCo py, CanonicalSessio nInfoCopy, CanonicalSurfac eInfoCopy }