[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15907660#comment-15907660
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on MINIFI-217:
---------------------------------------
Github user brosander commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/63
@phrocker
From a Java dev perspective, the namespaces look a little shallower than
the Java package names. I think that's probably justifiable though to prevent
a ton of boilerplate, given that the number of classes is much lower in
cpp-land.
Big fan of namespacing to avoid name clashes and just generally keep
different ideas separate from each other. Think this looks like a great step
forward :smile:
> Move to org::apache::nifi::minifi namespace in CPP agent
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MINIFI-217
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-217
> Project: Apache NiFi MiNiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: C++
> Affects Versions: cpp-0.1.0, cpp-0.2.0
> Reporter: marco polo
> Priority: Trivial
> Original Estimate: 504h
> Remaining Estimate: 504h
>
> Move code to a more controlled namespace. I suggest org::apache::nifi::minifi
> since that more closely reflects the JAVA package.
> Suggest Processor namespace be
> org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors
> Suggest I/O namespace be
> org::apache::nifi::minifi::io
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
