Based on [1] [2] [3] it seems like the .NET convention would be:
Apache.Geode.Client
For cpp the conventions seem a lot more muddled [4] [5]. Even for Apache
projects [6] [7] [8] [9] there’s lots of variation. This variant looks good to
me:
apache::geode::client
but I could be convinced otherwise.
Anthony
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229026(v=vs.110).aspx
[2] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/893ke618(v=vs.71).aspx
[3] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/918894/namespace-naming-conventions
[4] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Namespace_Names
[5] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CppCodingStandards#Namespace_Names
[6] https://thrift.apache.org/tutorial/cpp
[7] http://avro.apache.org/docs/1.6.1/api/cpp/html/namespaces.html
[8]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8765473/compiling-a-c-program-using-thrift-and-cassandra
[9] https://www.gridgain.com/sdk/1.7.2/cppdoc/namespaces.html
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> An upcoming change we need to decide on is the C++ and .NET namespace for
> the C++ and .NET clients.
>
> *C++*
> Current:
> *::gemfire*
> Thoughts:
> *::apache::geode::client*
> *::geode::client*
> I shy away from prefixing with *apache* since it requires extra blocks in
> C++:
> (formatted to Google C++ style guide)
> namespace apache {
> namespace geode {
> namespace client {
> class Cache {...};
> } // namespace client
> } // namespace geode
> } // namespace apache
> vs.
> namespace geode {
> namespace client {
> class Cache {...};
> } // namespace client
> } // namespace geode
> vs.
> namespace geode {
> class Cache {...};
> } // namespace geode
>
> I shy away form just *geode* because it feels too short but I am not that
> opposed to it. The question is would we likely have anything else in C++
> under the *geode* namespace that is not the client?
>
> *.NET*
> Current:
> *GemStone.GemFire.Cache.Generic*
> Thoughts:
> *Apache.Geode.Client*
> *Geode.Client*
> I am not a fan of *Apache.Geode.Cache.Generic* because *Generic* is legacy
> form the replacement of the non-generic versions of the API and *Cache*
> feels redundant. Feels odd to be working with *Apache.Geode.Cache*.*Cache*
> objects.
> The same issues with the C++ namespaces apply here since our .NET client is
> currently C++/CLI which suffers the same namespace block issues.
>
> It would feel good to have the namespaces be somewhat consistent between
> clients but it is not normal for namespaces in C++ or .NET to use the
> reverse domain style that Java uses. So *org::apache::geode::client /
> Org.Apache.Geode.Client* or some variant is off the table I think.
>
> Anyone have other thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
