Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
"Coordinator" is an invitation for bloat
See original GitHub issueLooks like Coordinators are used to bind views and values.
Lobs live grenade
Why not call a Coordinator a ViewBinder? Avoiding generic names like Coordinator, Controller, Manager, etc allow developers/reviewers to easily identify incorrectly-placed code. If I have a NounCoordinator, maybe the function tellServerAboutNounChanges belongs there. But if I have a NounBinder, then tellServerAboutNounChanges is quite clearly functionality that belongs on a different object.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 7 years ago
- Reactions:2
- Comments:7
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
Closing this issue. Not convinced it’s worthwhile to repaint the bike shed, and consumers can always subclass if they want a more specific name in their codebase.
The name is just meant to be neutral and non-prescriptive. I’m ok with renaming, but haven’t heard anything that strikes me as dramatically better. (“ViewBinder” already exists in the platform, and is a bit prescriptive.)
@piasy Can’t argue with Navi, everyone should consider it for more complex needs.