Alex Rousskov wrote:
SourceLayout: adaptation/{icap,ecap}, take 1
Moved src/ICAP into src/adaptation/icap.
Moved src/eCAP into src/adaptation/ecap.
Renamed ICAP source files from ICAPFoo.{cc,h} to Foo.{cc,h}.
Still not sure what the effects on windows will be.
But with recently clearing up the automake issues, the non-windows are fine.
Placed ICAP names into Adaptation::Icap namespace, renaming ICAPFoo to
Adaptation::Icap::Foo.
------------------------------
I am posting this for review and to provide context for the following
question.
Before ICAP and eCAP directories were moved into adaptation/, we had
Adaptation and Ecap namespaces. We now have
Adaptation
Ecap
Adaptation::Icap
This intermediate state is inconsistent. What should I implement as the
final set of namespaces? The choices are
A) Flat: Adaptation, Ecap, Icap
This option makes most adaptation names "shorter".
B) Scoped or nested: Adaptation, Adaptation::Icap, Adaptation::Ecap.
This option better reflects the nested directory structure and scope.
When answering this question, please keep in mind that we will
eventually face similar questions when polishing authentication and
storage code:
Auth, Auth::Basic, Auth::Negotiate versus Auth, Basic, Negotiate
Fs, Fs::Diskd, Fs::Coss versus Fs, Diskd, Coss
I tend to favor (B). What do you think?
Yes on changing the current state.
Yet to find anything problematic. So +-0 from me on the choice. Nesting
to match the directory include path sounds okay and 'feels right'.
bb:tweak debugs needs to use HERE macro
Amos
--
Please be using
Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.5
