[Mono-list] Re: Mono CVS: mcs gvaish
Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:47:26 +0100
At 10:03 AM 12/4/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>A Rafael D Teixeira wrote:
> > First, just one of my comments:
> > I donīt know why Rhys has objections to Mono root namespace. Would he ask
> > Microsoft not to use the Microsoft root namespace? Would he prefer to
> have a
> > Ximian namespace (a company-based namespace instead of project-based
> > namespace)?
>If the code is truly Mono-specific, or a Ximian product
>like mcs and MonoBASIC, then I have no objection. But
>if the library is intended to be general-purpose, then I would
>prefer that generic names be used like "OpenSystem", and
>that greater care be taken to isolate the details from particular
Judging from Rafael's outline for the Mono namespace, it is about the same
as the various Microsoft namespaces that exist in .NET (Microsoft.CSharp,
etc.). At least for the MS namespaces, those exist separately (separate
assemblies) from the core library, though they sometimes derive from corlib
classes (CodeDomProvider for example).
>My suggestion of using "OpenSystem" instead of "Mono"
>for such namespaces is intended to get other programmers
>to think in a generic mindset so that their code becomes
>more useful to other projects, instead of less useful.
I have reservations about "generic". Years ago I worked for a company that
always wanted everything to be "flexible" (which basically is the same in
this context). Outcome: yes, everything was flexible and didn't solve a
specific problem. I tend to stick to "make it work first, make it shiny later".
>I'm desperately trying to find some way that our two
>projects can co-operate in a useful manner. Co-operation
>does not mean you can make it up as you go along and
>I'm forced to work around your design bugs. It means
>we have to meet in the middle, defining clear and generic
>interfaces between components.
Design bugs... in this case I'd say: perfectly ok design decision for Mono,
given Mono would care only for itself (intentionally provocative).