Re: glibmm: Creating a DBus namespace?

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:53 +0000, Chris Vine wrote:
[snip]
> It is glibmm which has an inconsistent usage, by separating off only
> gio into a separate namespace (which incidentally is ::Gio, not
> Glib::Gio), which may be the source of what you find confusing.  There
> seems no particular reason why there should not be GThread, GObject and
> GModule namespaces in glibmm:

Would there be much in those namespaces? There isn't much point in a
namespace that has only one class. But if there are more classes per
those namespaces, please do put the suggestion in bugzilla so we can
consider it later.

>  the defining feature of course is that gio
> contains vastly more code than would these others namespaces.

Yes, gio has a huge amount of API, particularly now that it has the
GDBus stuff too. It feels like a special case.

The separation does seem arbitrary sometimes though.

> However modularising glibmm is in my view a good thing, so Gio::DBus
> sounds fine to me.  But why restrict this to just one subset of gio,
> namely gdbus? As I say, there is a great deal more namespace modularity
> which could sensibly be implemented in glib.

At the moment, I'm just moving them into a namespace. I assume that you
are not proposing to move them into a separate shared library.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com