Crossing namespaces

Thomas Voß thomas.voss at canonical.com
Wed Jul 3 10:28:31 UTC 2013


I think making a deeper hierarchy does not conclude into complexity.
Trying to think in a flat mir::server namespace, I would think that it
is likely that we will end up with something like Graphics*
class/struct names as opposed to having a graphics:: namespace. Of
course, both is valid, but Graphics* is just very redundant and
syntactic noise in the end.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Daniel van Vugt
<daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:
> I think making things more complicated (deeper namespaces) is not an ideal
> way to make them easier to understand. Maybe hold off on that.
>
>
>
> On 03/07/13 18:21, Thomas Voß wrote:
>>
>> 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



More information about the Mir-devel mailing list