[MonoDevelop] Assembly reorganization

[John Luke]

Hello,
I mostly agree with this, especially the getting organized and naming 
things for development towards a 1..0
release that will be API stable.  A couple small comments.

Lluis Sanchez wrote:

>This is a proposal of reorganization of the MD assemblies. Hopefully,
>this would be the last big API change before MD 1.0. The goal of this
>change is to improve the modularization of the MD API, and provide a
>more coherent, easy to use and reusable API.
>
>MD is not just another GTK# application. It provides a public API that
>addins and other applications can use and extend. When we release MD 1.0
>this API will be frozen and only incremental changes will be allowed
>until MD 2.0, which may take quite a lot of time. That's why we need to
>make sure that MD 1.0 API covers most of the usage scenarios of MD.
>
>The basic idea is to split the API in (at least) three assemblies:
>
>      * MonoDevelop.Core: it would be the core runtime of MD. It would
>        contain what it has right now plus some services moved from
>        MonoDevelop.Base. It would not contain anything related to the
>        GUI.
>  
>
The original idea (at least I think) was that core would only contain 
the minimum functionality.  I think we
shouldn't move any services into here that are not 1) useful for almost 
any app that exists 2) free of non-standard
dependencies. So for example, I think the Gettext stuff should move out 
of the Core.  There isn't really anything wrong
with making it more functional and heavier, just a different trade off 
being made.

>      * MonoDevelop.Gui: This assembly would contain user interface
>        components for displaying, browsing or managing the information
>        from the MD runtime, together with other utility classes.
>      * MonoDevelop.IdeApplication: This would implement the MonoDevelop
>        IDE, based on the previous assemblies.
>
>  
>
A perhaps too simple suggestion, instead of MonoDevelop.IdeApplication 
how about using just MonoDevelop.

>Some namespaces should also be renamed. A basic rule we should follow is
>that namespaces implemented in an assembly should have the assembly name
>as prefix.
>  
>
I would like this also, and I have wanted to change the MonoDevelop.Dock 
assembly to work like this but
the Dock class conflicts. Since we are discussing names anyone have any 
bright ideas here?