Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 10:29 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
The following page has been changed by Amos Jeffries:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/SourceLayout?action=diff&rev2=9&rev1=8
Original:
Question: Can we remove Foo prefix from FOO/!FooSomething.h file
names? The prefix carries no additional information and is probably
not required for modern compilers, especially in C++ world.
Answer: File name should match the primary class declared or defined
in that file. Directory name should match the namespace used by
classes in that directory. We should move from PROTOFoo to PROTO::Foo
classes.
Added to Answer:
Some systemic problems have been found cleaning filenames like this
with compiler include methods.
Amos,
Please clarify what you meant. What systemic problems and with what
kind of filenames? Is this about the case of "proto", the directory
name? We have agreed that directories will use low_case, for Windows
sake, right?
I was referring to the g++ "foo.h foo.h -I./src/Module -I./src" problem
Robert pointed out following that windows talk.
IMO the windows case-sensitivity can be worked around, but the -I
problem is a big one.
Do you see a flaw in my response to that Robert's email? I have said
that Robert's example will not be applicable to Squid sources: All
module files will include using the "module/file.h" pattern and not the
current "file.h" pattern. We are going to use -I src/ and never -I
src/module/.
I do not recall objections from Robert or others. Did I miss them? Are
there any problems with that approach?
I missed that email from you.
I don't see any huge problems with that approach, as long as we make
sure its kept to.
Amos
--
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
