On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:19 +0000, Rupert Smith wrote: > I notice that you plan to rename files after classes? If you are doing > a big rename, it might also be advantageous to try and rename towards > having a consistent client API whilst you are at it.
Not at this point - I'm just restoring the original simple dir=namespace/file=class.cpp correspondance that got a bit mangled by the autobuild changes. > There are > presently some pointless inconsistencies in naming accross the > clients. For example: > > java: AMQSession > .net: AmqChannel > cpp: ClientChannel Can you please add your thoughts to QPID-342, which is about refactoring of the C++ client API for binary compatibility. That would be the time to make the changes you propose. Actually this probably merits a separate JIRA. Right now there's no basis for me to do a renaming because there's no consensus on the correct names. Also seems like we need broder agreement on API than just class names if you want a meaningful cross-language API. Like Gordon I am not in favour of prefixes on identifiers when namespaces are a better choice. I'm also not keen on calling a Channel a Session - the word Session is nowhere used in AMQP 0-8, and it almost certainly will be used in 0-10 with a very different meaning. I think any agreed cross-language API must be based strictly on terms from the AMQP protocol. Anyhow if you want to start a JIRA for this, please link it to QPID-342 so I wont forget. Cheers, Alan.
