Hi John,
2009/11/17 John P. Feltz <[email protected]>
>
> Glyn Matthews wrote:
> > 1. boost::network::uri::uri and boost::network::uri::http::uri have a
> > redundant namespace. I understand that the directives maybe shouldn't be
> in
> > boost::network, but a different named namespace might be better so that
> we
> > could have boost::network::uri and boost::network::http::uri.
> >
> I think that directives which perform requirements of the uri API should
> be within a boost::network::uri namespace. If it handles something
> specific to http uri -though not necessarily at exactly
> boost::network::uri::http- either the associated tag should be within
> ::http, or the function or class which handles http specific things
> should be. So in short there is no easy answer, it depends on things
> like cross cutting concerns, and what boost::network::uri means ( I'll
> put what I've discussed here in the design spec for revision).
>
>
Right. I'm struggling to come up with an alternative name that would allow
`boost::network::uri` as a class name. Also, if we continue with
`boost::network::uri` as a namespace, I think protocol specific stuff should
be in namespace `boost::network::{protocol}`, so the HTTP URI directives
should be in `boost::network::http::uri`. :)
G
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Cpp-netlib-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpp-netlib-devel
