+1 for Apache.Geode.Client ( .net ) and apache::geode::client( C++ )
Thanks
Avinash
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> You make a good argument. Have fun converting all those namespaces for us
> in your free time. :)
>
> Apache.Geode.Client and apache::geode::
Anthony,
You make a good argument. Have fun converting all those namespaces for us
in your free time. :)
Apache.Geode.Client and apache::geode::client it is then...
Anyone else want to chime in before we execute on this?
-Jake
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:39 AM Anthony Baker wrote:
> Based on
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
In my experience, it seems easier to have too many namespaces than it is to
have too few. My instinct is to start with geode:: and Geode. and further
subdivide when it becomes unwieldy and collisions arise.
Sarge
> On 16 Jan, 2017, at 21:10, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>
> An upcoming change we need
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)
