The vote passes with +2 for List One, and +1 for List Two. The changes have been applied to the repository.
Timothy Bish wrote: > > +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-tp22255094p22461837.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
