Re: Oaf IDL re-structuring ...

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Michael Meeks wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > . We are already using the 'OAF' namespace for the internal OAF IDL
> 
>         It is proposed to rename this.

Sorry, missed that part.

> > If we were going to start grouping everything under a single namespace,
> it
> > should be under 'GNU' or something slightly more generic - GNU::GNOME,
> > GNU::Bonobo, GNU::OAF, etc. etc.
>   
>         Yes; this is one theory; what concerns me is the amount of typing
> people would have to do if we keep adding namespace specifiers:
>   
>         GNU_GNOME_OAF_              

Technically speaking, my suggestion was GNU_OAF_*, which would not be _as_
long... :)

>         is longer, I'd like to try and avoid pre-pending too many levels  
> of redundant namespace, due to the extra typing pain this gives all C
> binding users.

I am not objecting to just hanging off of toplevel namespaces directly -
on the contrary, I think that is the right way to do it. The GNU:: stuff
was just a suggestion to appease Certain People who are worried about
using up an infinite namespace. :)

>         I am curious as to why you object to putting OAF in the GNOME
> namespace though ? I know it was intended to be GNOME independant so it  
> could be used elsewhere; do you envisage GNOME_OAF_ putting off potential
> clients ?

It should not be in the GNOME namespace because it is not part of GNOME
proper.

IOW, I'm not seeing any reasons why it *should* be part of the GNOME
namespace.
-- Elliot
"The Pythagorean Theorem employed 24 words, the Lord's Prayer has 66 words,
Archimedes Principle has 67 words, the 10 Commandments have 179 words, the
Gettysburg Address had 286 words, the Declaration of Independence, 1,300 words and
finally the European Commission's regulation on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words."