+1 for the first list.
semog wrote: > > Well, I think this issue needs to be resolved. The informal vote and > preference is for List One, so I'll adjust the code to match that style. > > - Jim > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:53 PM, ybronsht <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Jim, I understand your point about Oracle. First of all, we can tell that >> Oracle is also ignorant of the framework guidelines from their naming of >> "OracleXMLSQLException". I've actually seen this come up in a more >> general >> case in Microsoft's own products: >> >> There's a ServiceDescription class (represents a WSDL document) in the >> System.Web.Services.Description in a .Net 2.0 assembly, and a >> System.ServiceModel.ServiceDescription class in a WCF (.Net 3.0) >> assembly. >> Having worked on a WCF product for the past year or so, I've seen them >> collide on many occasions. What is done (including in many Microsoft code >> samples) is just a namespace alias: >> >> using WSDL = System.Web.Services.Description; >> ... >> var wsdl = new WSDL.ServiceDescription(); >> >> The compiler will force the user to keep the naming unambiguous - that's >> not >> our job. And if the user wants to type those extra three letters for >> visual >> clarity, he can do that too - again, not our job. Let's let the user >> decide >> when those letters need to be there and when they can be done without. >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Discuss%3A-AMQNET-93-tp22255094p22256029.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Discuss%3A-AMQNET-93-tp22255094p22413422.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
