Hi Vladimir, I believe that the naming convention is fine (I speak as a user), but could we call the module Ignite4net or IgniteNetModule ? The only thing to consider is that the interfaces in .NET are always named with the letter "I " to the first position ( IService for example ). Regards, Gianfranco
2015-08-21 15:50 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Igniters, > > I am starting migration of C++/.Net integration modules donated by GridGain > to Ignite. I am going to put all that stuff, including Java classes, .Net > classes and .cpp/.h files in a new module. > > In GridGain we first named this stuff "clients" and later "interop". But > there are several problems with these namings: > 1) These are not clients, but rather fully-fledged Ignite nodes operated > through non Java-platform. > 2) "interop" is a jargon and do not give user clear understanding on what > API is about. > > Batter name for that module which comes to my mind is "platform". And > following our standard naming conventions for Java classes there will be > something like "PlatformDotNetConfiguration", "PlatformProcessor", etc.. > > Any more ideas on how to name this stuff? > > Vladimir. >
