qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: What's with the qmf::org::apache::qpid namespaces?
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:57:15 GMT
Thinking some more on this issue ...

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 08:57 -0400, Ted Ross wrote:
> Alan Conway wrote:
> > They're very un-C++ and inconsistent with all our other use of
> > namespaces. Is there some compelling reason for imposing this nasty
> > Java-esque namespace on C++ code? In particular it means we are using
> > names in the global namespace rather than one, which is ugly.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan.
> >
> >   
> Alan,
> 
> We now have five extension packages in the management framework and more 
> on the way.  They are being developed by diverse and unrelated groups.  
> We need a namespace structure for the management schemas to ensure that 
> there are no collisions in the global set.  Furthermore, some of these 
> packages are used in qpidd plug-ins which means they need to work within 
> the C++ namespace because they are linked into the broker.
> 
> What we were doing before the change was to put all generated management 
> code in qpid::management.  This did not scale and we already had a name 
> collision.  To fix the problem, I matched the C++ namespaces to the 
> management package namespaces and also matched the directory structure.

I think what you are saying here is that you've changed the internal
code structure of the qpid c++ code because of a *schema* naming
problem.

I assume this is because of some simple minded assumptions in the code
generated to marshal the schema data structures. Why not change the
generated code that sits inside qpidd so that it fits better with the
existing namespace use whilst maintaining the necessary schema
namespace.

/me ducks and goes back to rdma performance work

Andrew



Mime
View raw message