[Mono-list] Re: Mono CVS: mcs gvaish
Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:34:01 +0530
I was off for a small vacation (yet again).
It looks like there has been a long discussion on whether to have the namespaces as Mono.* or System.* At first thought, it
should have caused so much of discussion - since we want to keep them internal. So, whether they are Mono.* or System.*, it does not
There were some arguments as to that there are some Microsoft.* internal namespaces - then in that case, if the hacker here
involved in the related namespace wants to use Mono.*, he can. Well, so can I - Mono.System.Web.UI.WebControls, right?
But, I am planning to stick to System.Web.UI.WebControls. The reasons are obvious - I want to maintain homogeneity in the code
structure. No blah-blah starting namespace. All System.* typo thing. If we plan to write a new library, like MonoMail, then
Mono.Mail etc may do, but let it be System.*
So, all those needing my classes, please use System.Web.Utils namespace.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Wille" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 18:17
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Re: Mono CVS: mcs gvaish
: 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).
: Mono-list maillist - Monoemail@example.com