GIanfranco, The question was more about module naming. Surely, we follow .Net naming conventions in .Net part. :-)
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Gianfranco Murador < murador.gianfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > >
