On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:19:17PM +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 07/11/2013 02:33 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > >On 07/11/2013 02:01 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > >>I'm doing some work with the swigged Python bindings (not the pure > >>Python implementation of Qpid) and want to get some insight into how, if > >>at all, these bindings are being used by anybody currently. > >> > >>Do you have a project that's using the Swig-generated bindings; i.e., > >>the ones that are in the cqpid module? If so, how much do you feel it > >>would impact your development if we were to, in future, move these > >>bindings to a module named differently? > >> > >>[ ] No impact > >>[ ] Some impact > >>[ ] Major impact > >> > >>Would you prefer a module named something more like: > >> > >>[x] qpid_messaging > > Actually I think I'd prefer qpidc_messaging to give a hint as to its > nature. (Sorry for hogging the thread!).
Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion. :D I'm not a fan of adding that detail to the name. For me, at least, the module shouldn't reflect an implementation detail like what underlying language is being wrapped in this case. . I'd prefer simply using qpid_messaging as the module and have that implementation detail in the documentation. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
pgpUcJGoDJ48B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
