Re: Discuss: AMQNET-93

[Jim Gomes <e....@gmail.com>]

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 <yb...@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.
>
>

Re: Discuss: AMQNET-93

[semog <e....@gmail.com>]

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 <yb...@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

[Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>]

+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 <yb...@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.