On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Colin Patrick McCabe wrote:
> rados_ioctx_t seems to describe this object pretty well...
> I would lean away from rados_handle_t because it's too generic
> sounding and could be confused with the cluster_t.
Sounds good to me. And Rados::Ioctx I guess (IOCtx caps are too annoying
IMO).
rados_ioctx_{open,close}?
sage
>
> C.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub
> <yehudasa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Colin Patrick McCabe wrote:
> >>> Another idea: pool_t -> pool_context_t, PoolHandle -> PoolContext
> >>
> >> I prefer rados_ioctx_t or rados_handle_t.. putting pool in the name is
> >> what is confusing (for me). Which pool you're using is just one (of
> >> potentially many) pieces of context/state associated with the handle.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah. I'd also rename the rados_pool_open()/close() to something else,
> > e.g., rados_open() and rados_close() or rados_x_open() and
> > rados_x_close() where x is not pool.
> >
> > Yehuda
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
