Refactoring Session #1.

[wahidshalaly]

This is an incomplete work. It seems like a big refactor & I think it requires approval for the idea before proceeding.

Please, take your time & review this carefully (but don't merge it).
In this implementation I tried a different approach. Let's call it Dynamic Resource Keys.
So, I don't have constants or fixed names, like current approach, but I've a convention to follow.
This approach is more compact, as you'll see, but you'll lose the benefit of using fixed/constant resource keys.

Let me know what do u think & if you'd like to continue this approach or to keep the current approach.

[MehdiK]

Nice

[MehdiK]

This looks nice on the surface. I am not sure why you duplicated some of the extension classes in a different namespace. This makes it very difficult to see what has changed and also the extensions should live in the root namespace to avoid breaking existing usage.

If you could please change the existing classes, as opposed to adding new ones, this way we can more easily see what has changed and how.

[wahidshalaly]

The point, first, I started by refactoring the original implementation then I find out how different it became.
So, I moved the new implementation to a new namespace & returned the original one so you can see them side-by-side & decide which direction do u prefer. As I said this is incomplete & more work to be done especially for localization.

[MehdiK]

I like where this is headed.

To be honest I can more easily see the difference, using a git difftool, if the files are changed. IMO spikes (and more generally PRs) should look like the expected end result so it's easier to see what's changed and how and also to facilitate discussions of different options.

[wahidshalaly]

I see this. I tried not to influence the final decision as part of respecting the ownership :)

I've merged recent changes & I'll continue this refactor this weekend & I expect to update the PR by end of tomorrow.

[MehdiK]

superseded with #106