[RFC] Solid and use of namespaces

[Brad Hards]

On Sunday 21 May 2006 09:27 am, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> As some of you already know, I'm working on Solid [S], and the current
> classes are in their own namespace (Solid).
I think this is a good decision. Solid is going to have to link to other 
libraries, and without a namespace you could well end up with conflicts  
(e.g. some UPS interface library might have a class called PowerManager, and 
you need to be able to distinguish between them).

> Opinions are welcome, in particular I'd like to have reactions regarding:
> 1) The use of those nested namespaces, good or bad? better keep a flat
> organization (everything in a Solid namespace)? Currently I dislike this
> idea, but well nothing is set in stone yet, so if good arguments are
> provided I can change my mind.
Whatever helps you think about it. Beyond a single layer isn't that critical. 
I'd probably just call it PowerManger and NetworkManager, rather than doing a 
second layer.

Brad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20060521/bd33a789/attachment.sig>