Why are component names so generic?

[eclarke12]

This package seems really awesome, but I'm concerned about the generic nature of the component names (eg. animation, utils, data etc).

It seems if we want to integrate this in an existing org we would need to completely namespace it (eg. prepend lwcc to folder/component names) to prevent conflicts, or we're left with using the Managed Package which has its own downsides.

I'm just curious how others have handled this?

[scolladon]

Hi,

That's a fair point!
When we started we were only thinking of the managed package use case.
The more we learn from this experience, the more we want to support the open source use case which has this naming dimension.

We are currently thinking about creating a LWCC V2 using ChartJs 3 and 2GP.
It may be the right moment to change the naming of our components, using a preffix.

I'm also curious about how others have handled this?

[aranwe]

Yup, I can confirm that we have had issues with this + it creates rather mess in a org.
+1 to prefix in V2 & ChartJs3 support :)