qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Swigged Python bindings...
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:21:30 GMT
On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:19:17PM +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> On 07/11/2013 02:33 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2013 02:01 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>>>> I'm doing some work with the swigged Python bindings (not the pure
>>>> Python implementation of Qpid) and want to get some insight into how, if
>>>> at all, these bindings are being used by anybody currently.
>>>> Do you have a project that's using the Swig-generated bindings; i.e.,
>>>> the ones that are in the cqpid module? If so, how much do you feel it
>>>> would impact your development if we were to, in future, move these
>>>> bindings to a module named differently?
>>>> [ ] No impact
>>>> [ ] Some impact
>>>> [ ] Major impact
>>>> Would you prefer a module named something more like:
>>>> [x] qpid_messaging

I'm not using the swigged bindings but I would vote for qpid.messaging over 
qpid_messaging. I really dislike putting prefixes into variable names instead of 
using the language name-space features. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of 
ugly module names qpid_X, qpid_Y etc.and no way for the programmer to say 
"import qpid"

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org

View raw message