I wasn't subscribed before, so I'll have to address Alan's notes in a new thread.
My reading of the internet suggests that "using namespace" is awfully common. Is it really anathema? Here's the upside of using namespaces: - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton ^ A small list of understandable top-level categories - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/core ^ A core set of concepts that users will find frequent occasion to use - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/reactor ^ A set of tools for using the core concepts in a reactive programming style - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/util - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/codec - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/types - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/tree/master/output/include/qpid/proton/extras ^ Things that are indeed useful, but they are useful less frequently or they are less central to the API The namespace handling in the examples remains reasonable, imo: - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/broker.cpp - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/client.cpp - https://github.com/ssorj/stutter/blob/master/src/helloworld.cpp I'm not trying to say this is the layout we need to end up at. It could use some improvement. But having a plan, with understandable grouping, and positiioning by user priority, is to me a big win. It helps the API user to focus on the most important things first. Justin
