> Ok. I am convinced.
> So "hbqtxbp" is the right namespace?
Not necessarily :) These are our options:
- hbxbp
pro: clean and simple
con: it will become ambiguous when/if we will have non-QT
based XBP implementation.
AFAIR this was my original proposition.
- hbqtxbp
pro: defines layering well.
con: look very cryptic, uses reverse namespace notation.
- hbxbpqt
pro: useful if we have XBP implementations for multiple GUI libs,
uses our namespace structure. (wide to narrow scope)
con: looks a bit cryptic.
Since we don't have plans (and it wouldn't sound too realistic
either on the mid-run) to implement XBP using alternative
portable GUI libs (like wx or GTK) inside the Harbour Project
repository, IMO for now it's safe to simply call it 'hbxbp', it's
also nice, clean, short and non-ambiguous. Later we can
switch to 'hbxbpqt' if we happen to develop other flavours
like 'hbxbpwx' or 'hbxbpgtk'.
So my vote: hbxbp
Opinions are welcome of course.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
