[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] C# bindings (Was: First patch)



´╗┐The idea was to stick to libvirt API documentation which contain a libvirt part and a virError part. Types are used everywhere that's why they are at a upper level (LibvirtBindings). In fact, libVirt and libvirtError are in the LibvirtBindings, as they are classes. This is useful to clean the code and not have all the code in one class... But I don't know what is better, usually, in this kind of project, I'm used to separate things.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthias Bolte" <matthias bolte googlemail com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:43 PM
To: <arnaud champion devatom fr>
Cc: "Justin Clift" <jclift redhat com>; <libvir-list redhat com>
Subject: Re: [libvirt] C# bindings (Was: First patch)

2010/10/18  <arnaud champion devatom fr>:
The class library expose the "LibvirtBindings" namespace. This namespace
expose all needed types (enum, struct). It also expose 2 main classes :
"libVirt" and "libvirtError". The "libVirt" class expose all interfaces of the libvirt library to handle virtualized domains and "libvirtError" class expose all interfaces of the libvirt library to handle errors raised while
using the library.

Is there a specific reason to use three different ways to capitalize
libvirt in the C# code?

LibvirtBindings
libVirt
libvirtError

I suggest you choose one form and stick with it, for example

LibvirtBindings
Libvirt
LibvirtError

Matthias



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]