On 7 July 2011 09:39, Zach Tellman <ztell...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that namespaces should be designed to be consumed, but that can be > pretty taxing on the developer. In my libraries, I tend to split the > functions into whatever sub-namespaces I want to keep the organization easy > for me, and then import all the functions I want to expose into a > higher-level namespace. > > For example, in Aleph I have HTTP functionality implemented in > aleph.http.client, aleph.http.server, aleph.http.websocket, etc. but all the > useful functions are gathered together into aleph.http. This means that I > don't have to navigate a monolithic namespace, but the users of my library > don't have to declare a dozen namespaces to get anything done. I find this > approach scales for me pretty well, and I haven't heard any complaints from > the people using my libraries about the organization. >
I think that's a fairly sane way to organise things. I tend to get annoyed when a library has several use/requires to make use of it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
