I think it's a more proper name. For example:

<?php
// $Id: rules_admin.module,v 1.1.2.1 2009/03/28 21:54:18 fago Exp $

/**
 * @file Rules administration UI
...

This could free up the name space for alternative Rules administration method.

Comments

fago’s picture

fago
Primary language German
Location Vienna
commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

This would make it necessary to change all function names to obey the namespace - but I prefer to keep them ;)
I'm sure there are enough names left though.

mitchell’s picture

mitchell commented
Title: Rename rules_admin to rules_admin_ui » Rename rules_admin to rules_ui_rules_admin
Status: Closed (won't fix) » Needs review

@fago: This idea seems even better than the last, but I'm mainly throwing this naming schema out, because naming the included UI rules_admin doesn't seem to initiate the paradigm of "many UI's."

Some other ideas of what this might look like in the future:

rules_ui_rules_admin
rules_ui_blog_comment_notification
rules_ui_blog_work_flow
rules_ui_blog_automatic_path_alias_override
rules_ui_blog_automatic_node_title_override
rules_ui_ubercart_x_y_z
rules_ui_rules_user_xyz (very fuzzy here)

How do those names look?

fago’s picture

fago
Primary language German
Location Vienna
commented
Status: Needs review » Closed (works as designed)

Names of modules not shipping with "rules", shouldn't start their name with the same prefix as rules. So instead it should be "ubercart_rules_ui".

traviscarden’s picture

traviscarden commented
Title: Rename rules_admin to rules_ui_rules_admin » Rename rules_admin to rules_ui
Category: bug » task
Status: Closed (works as designed) » Active

@fago: I'm reopening this issue because, though the net effect of my proposal is the same, both my proposal and my argument are slightly different from @opensanta's. But if my case doesn't prevail with you—I'm not trying to be a bother—just close it again. Thanks.

There seems to be an emerging (if unofficial) trend to name UI sub-modules modulename_ui. For example, views_ui and imagecache_ui. The choice probably used to be of little consequence, but then Drush came along, and now it's common to enable modules from the command line using their machine readable name. If all modules followed the afore-mentioned convention, site builders wouldn't have to remember individual variants (e.g. "Was it rules_ui or rules_admin?"). Consistent application of such patterns, I think, will necessarily reduce programmer error by creating (and making good on) a sense that things are just "like you'd expect them to be".

I recognize the proposed change would involve changing every function name, and I respect the tedium of that. I would be willing to write a patch if I knew it were welcome.

mitchell’s picture

mitchell commented
Version: 6.x-1.x-dev » 7.x-2.x-dev
Component: User interface » Miscellaneous
fago’s picture

fago
Primary language German
Location Vienna
commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

#4 makes sense, however the rules_ui namespace is in d7 already used for providing UI components - that's different to the actual rules_admin module, which just makes use of that. Therefore I think the current naming reflects our situation best.