[Nepomuk] Nepomuk2 namespace (was Nepomuk - Moving out of kde-runtime)

[Ivan Cukic]

This goes only to nepomuk ml.

Just one quesiton, why are all nepomuk's .cpp files done in a manner to 
specify the namespace for each implemented methos instead of just putting the 
contents in a namespace Nepomuk { ... } block.

So, why this:

Nepomuk::Class::someMethod1(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod2(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod3(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod4(...) { ... }

Instead of this:

namespace Nepomuk {
Class::someMethod1(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod2(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod3(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod4(...) { ... }
}

I'm asking this because if, for KF5, we are (hopefully) to choose some other 
namespace name (for example Nepomuk again), it would need less changes to the 
code, since Sebastian didn't like the idea of having a macro for the nepomuk 
namespace like Qt does.

Cheerio,
Ivan


On Wednesday, 23. May 2012. 5.04.37 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> Sebastian
> 
> Change of plans. As per recent discussions with tsdgeos and kde_pepo on
> #kde-devel -
> 
> They would like to avoid too many new repositories. So, if it's okay with
> you we'll keep the nepomuk-kde-config and nepomuk-kde-kio code in
> kde-runtime, while the rest can be removed as it is there in nepomuk-core.
> 
> If you have the time to port some of the stuff to Nepomuk2 it would be
> nice, otherwise I'll take care of all of it tomorrow.
> 
> Good Night
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Vishesh Handa <me at vhanda.in> wrote:
> > Does anyone have suggestions on where nepomuk-kde-kio and
> > nepomuk-kde-config should be placed?
> > 
> > I was thinking under kde-baseaps, but that might not be correct. Any
> > suggestions?
> > 
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Krammer <krammer at kde.org> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 2012-05-17, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> >> > I think we can manage BC. The only thing that would be hard are the
> >> > DBus
> >> > interfaces. But since nepomuk-core contains client libs which are
> >> > supposed to be used instead of the dbus interfaces...
> >> 
> >> I think as long as you didn't advertise the D-Bus interfaces as a kind of
> >> public API, e.g. by installing D-Bus introspection XML files, that should
> >> be
> >> fine.
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Kevin
> >> 
> >> > On 05/17/2012 09:19 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> >> > > On 2012-05-17, Vishesh Handa <me at vhanda.in> wrote:
> >> > >> @Packagers: We will not be maintaining binary compatibility in
> >> > >> nepomuk-core. At least not for KDE 4.10. We still need to break a
> >> 
> >> lot of
> >> 
> >> > >> things.
> >> > > 
> >> > > NACK.
> >> > > 
> >> > > this is a completely no go.
> >> > > 
> >> > > /Sune
> >> > > 
> >> > >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> > >> unsubscribe <<
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
> >> KDE user support, developer mentoring
> >> 
> >> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> 
> >> unsubscribe <<
> > 
> > --
> > Vishesh Handa
-- 
I don't really trust a sane person.
  -- Lyle Alzado