+1 on moving it to include/ though. The deeper in I get, the less OTP like couchdb looks to me... :)
B. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd go a little further. I think CouchDB should have two include files: > > include/couch_db.hrl (I'd prefer couch.hrl but I think we might be stuck w/ > this) > src/couch_int.hrl (name is not important) > > The first one would contain all record definitions needed to interact with > CouchDB from Erlang. The second would contain macro definitions and records > that are not supposed to be exported. Moving couch_db.hrl to include/ would > eventually allow other applications to point to couch_db.hrl using the > -include_lib directive instead of specifying the absolute path to the header. > Regards, > > Adam > > On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> Actually we are using ?b2l/?l2b and some other macros to make the code >> shorter and ease our development. All these macros are in the main >> include file couch_db.hrl used everywhere in the code. >> >> Since this include will be likely used in CouchDB plugins created by >> users, I would like to have these kind of macros separated in their >> own include file. Something common in C world. The main reason is to >> not pollute namesspacing in external plugins and let them import only >> what they need, ie couchdb types/records. >> >> What do you think about it? Also, not related but maybe it could be a >> good practice to enforce the use of these macros in all the couchdb >> codebase like suggest filippe. >> >> Any thoughts ? >> >> - benoît > >
