qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com>
Subject C++ proton API and namespaces
Date Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:24:42 GMT
I wasn't subscribed before, so I'll have to address Alan's notes in a new

My reading of the internet suggests that "using namespace" is awfully
common.  Is it really anathema?

Here's the upside of using namespaces:

  - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton

    ^ A small list of understandable top-level categories


    ^ A core set of concepts that users will find frequent occasion to use


    ^ A set of tools for using the core concepts in a reactive programming


    ^ Things that are indeed useful, but they are useful less frequently or
they are less central to the API

The namespace handling in the examples remains reasonable, imo:

  - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/broker.cpp
  - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/client.cpp
  - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/helloworld.cpp

I'm not trying to say this is the layout we need to end up at.  It could
use some improvement.

But having a plan, with understandable grouping, and positiioning by user
priority, is to me a big win.  It helps the API user to focus on the most
important things first.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message