Re: Discuss: AMQNET-93
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 ybron...@progress.com 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.
Re: Discuss: AMQNET-93
+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 ybron...@progress.com 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.
Re: Discuss: AMQNET-93
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 ybron...@progress.com 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.
