ïOkay, it's a good idea, I'm going for it
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:15 PM
To: "Matthias Bolte" <matthias.bolte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <arnaud.champion@xxxxxxxxxx>; <libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: C# bindings (Was: First patch)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:43:50PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2010/10/18 <arnaud.champion@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> The class library expose the "LibvirtBindings" namespace. This
> namespace
> expose all needed types (enum, struct). It also expose 2 main classes :
> "libVirt" and "libvirtError". The "libVirt" class expose all
> interfaces of
> the libvirt library to handle virtualized domains and "libvirtError"
> class
> expose all interfaces of the libvirt library to handle errors raised
> while
> using the library.
Is there a specific reason to use three different ways to capitalize
libvirt in the C# code?
LibvirtBindings
libVirt
libvirtError
I suggest you choose one form and stick with it, for example
LibvirtBindings
Libvirt
LibvirtError
Personally I'd make the naming look much more like the Java bindings.
Instead of following the C naming directly which is fugly for non-C
languages, have a 'libvirt' namespace, and then use plain names
like 'Connect', 'Domain', 'Network' for the objects and strip the
prefix off the method names to 'Connect.open', 'Domain.dump_xml'
etc
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B
9505 :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list