Crossing namespaces

[Thomas Voß]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Daniel van Vugt
<daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:
> Umm, no. I don't recommend making the namespaces any deeper than they
> already are :)
>
>

Hmmm, why not? It's arguably a very good way to classify components
into different categories (which is the purpose here, iiuc) and
namespace aliasing helps in avoiding spelling out deep namespace
hierarchies.



>
> On 03/07/13 18:11, Thomas Voß wrote:
>>
>> Fair point. I'm +1 on mir::server::${SUBNAMESPACE} as a first go to
>> reflect the directory structure.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Daniel van Vugt
>> <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I should also mention the below namespaces/directories are already
>>> underneath src/server/. So if they're used outside of the server then we
>>> should fix that too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/07/13 18:08, Thomas Voß wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> I think pulling everything under mir::server is difficult as some of
>>>> the functionality is shared with the client and potentially testing
>>>> infrastructure, too. My proposal would be that we refactor into more
>>>> appropriate namespaces if required/when severe issues are encountered.
>>>> Doing a full sweep right now seems to be overkill to me.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Daniel van Vugt
>>>> <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking through our class hierarchies, particularly in the server, it
>>>>> occurs
>>>>> to me that we cross namespaces a few times. This is particularly
>>>>> apparent
>>>>> trying to trace server logic through multiple subdirectories, which it
>>>>> crosses a lot. I'm referring mainly to:
>>>>> mir::graphics::
>>>>> mir::compositor::
>>>>> mir::surfaces::
>>>>> mir::frontend::
>>>>>
>>>>> These namespaces are often so related and interdependent that I can't
>>>>> see
>>>>> the justification in them being separate. It just makes things more
>>>>> complicated. And if they should be separate then they're not quite
>>>>> separated
>>>>> in an optimal way yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have a good reason why server classes shouldn't live under
>>>>> mir::server:: ? I don't imagine many of the sub-namespaces are really
>>>>> required or even logical any deeper than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mir-devel mailing list
>>>>> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel