[Mono-devel-list] Mono.Posix OEE

Jonathan Pryor jonpryor at vt.edu
Mon Nov 15 18:45:29 EST 2004

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 13:40 -0800, Todd Berman wrote:
> Hey,
> 	Considering that so far, 3 consumers of Mono.Posix have been bitten by
> changes, would it make sense to just make the new OEE stuff a different
> dll. (The 3 consumers being MWF, MD, and tomboy)
> /r:Mono.Posix.dll would give you the API that was published in the 1.0.x
> series, and in (I believe) everything previous to 1.1.2.
> /r:Mono.Posix.OEE.dll (Or something similar) would give you this new
> wonderful API that jonp is working on.

I'm not averse to renaming Mono.Posix OEE.  However, I'd like a good
name.  Mono.Posix.OEE.dll is *not* a good name, as it breaks convention.

The convention it breaks is that the DLL is named after the predominant
namespace in the assembly -- System.Xml.dll houses the System.Xml.*
namespaces, System.Runtime.Remoting mostly contains namespace rooted in
System.Runtime.Remoting, etc.  Having a Mono.Posix.OEE.dll which houses
the Mono.Posix namespace is counterintuitive.

Consequently, for an consistent solution we'd need to change *both* the
assembly name and the namespace.  This leaves the question: what should
the new name be?

I don't like Mono.Posix.OEE, as it adds an unnecessary 3rd level
namespace which is of little use.

I'd go for Mono.Unix or Mono.Sus (Sus = Single Unix Specification),
since POSIX.1 appears to be superseded by other standards (Unix 95, Unix
98, Unix 03, SUS v3), though I'm not entirely sure what the distinction
between the various standards is.

Alternatively we could do Mono.Unix.STANDARD, e.g. Mono.Unix.C99,
Mono.Unix.Unix03, etc., but this would likely lead to rampant code
duplication, a non-flat export namespace, and versioning questions which
have been raised (and discarded) before.

 - Jon

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list