On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 07:33:22PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > The patch improves the situation as it makes the whole API very > consistent w.r.t what exactly is the namespace here. Imo the namespace really is GVir::Config, not a GVirConfig namespace totally separate from the GVir namespace, so it does not make the whole API "very consistent", it just changes things. > I also > agree that nested namespaces will be better. If we decide/manage to go > towards nested namespaces, this patch actually helps in that regard as > well since existing API is not consistent/correct for that purpose > either. It helps *but breaks every library user*. Which is why you have to carefully weight the pros and cons. It makes things slightly nicer, slightly more consistent but *it breaks every user*. This is what makes it special and worth more considerations than a quick ack while everyone is on holidays. > > > I'm fine if it goes in too. Let's see what danpb thinks > > about it :) > > I think his intention is pretty clear from the bindings but I can wait. Yeah, under the assumption that what is in the bindings is right... Really, let's just wait until the holidays are over, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't like having such a patch go in before I get a chance to see it even if I agree with it. Christophe
Attachment:
pgp3p6utukQqS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list