.NET libraries can be written in any language that supports compilation to CLI. This includes C++/CLI, C#, F#, etc. [1]. Your project need not be written in the same language as the library. This is why I would suggest we not name the client library after the language we used to write it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:50 AM Michael William Dodge <mdo...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I'm not an expert at .NET development so please bear with me. In that > world, is CLI synonymous with C#? It seems that people who want a non-Java > client for Geode would be thinking of it in terms of programming language, > which is why I suggested csharp. It seems like people writing Geode clients > currently have three options for programming language: Java, C++, and C#. > > Sarge > > > On 16 Jan, 2017, at 08:45, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:35 AM Michael William Dodge <mdo...@pivotal.io > > > > wrote: > > > >> Given that the current source structure uses cpp and cli prefixes for > the > >> C++ and .NET clients, respectively, what about using cpp and cli for the > >> directories, allowing any new .NET development to go into a separate > >> directory (perhaps cs or csharp) without any additional moves? > >> > > > > Sarge, > > > > Given that .NET/CLI is language independent, calling a forthcoming pure > CLI > > client after it's potential language would not be appropriate. > > > > If the concerns is more moves than leaving everything under a > > "geode-native" directory might make most sense. Later we could add > > "geode-cli" when the new pure CLI client is developed. Then slowly phase > > out the CLI inside the "geode-native". > > > > -Jake > >
