Mike Mazur wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Justin Clark-Casey > <jjusti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> What would happen if some future plugin to OpenSim wanted to add extra >> metadata fields? Would then need to extend the >> AssetBase class? This seems a little icky to me (as opposed to extending a >> separate AssetMetadata class) but maybe >> that's just me. > > Good question. I guess there's a benefit of having the Metadata class > separate from the Asset class hierarchy. > >> Also to be penickity, could we prefix non-public fields with m_ rather than >> just _ ? I think this is the standard that >> we're following, though I have no desire to get religious about it. > > I was just following the existing code in AssetBase. When I make the > next changes in there I'll prefix the attributes with m_.
Yeh, that's my bad. The automatic refactor tools in monodevelop go with
_ for privates, which I used to get us there. Being able to
alphabetically sort all the attributes and have privates show up first
was a nice side effect. I should have made things work with the
existing convention, just fell off the queue.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague / Neas Bade
sda...@gmail.com
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
