Re: The XServiceInfo interface ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Michael Hoennig "(mi)" <mi sun com> writes:

> > `X' is comment as an abbreviation for `inter' or `trans', perhaps
> > because of the crossing effect, thus (seen in various places) `XF' for
> > "InterFace", `xcvr' for "transceiver", etc.
> 
> Good approach!

I always thought it was a bit silly, `I' is more clear, IMO.

> > I suggest it might be cleaner to prefix the service names if anything,
> > since the actual interface names will be used in code a lot more. Or
> > put them in a sub-module:
> 
> Interfaces have to be treated differently from normal pointer in source 
> code. That everybody here in the office found to be a good reason for 
> marking them specially. 

That makes sense. In GNOME, the naming convention itself (CORBA_Object
vs. GtkObject) tends to make this clear. Also, BonoboFoo makes a great
namespace prefix, making the X somewhat redundant.

> Despite that, there are only "political" arguments. And mine for
> this part is simply: minimize unnecessary changes to APIs.
> 

However, surely you will be adopting the convention that the module
names are part of the type name. Should Bonobo::Whatever end up as:

BonoboXWhatever
XBonoboWhatever
BonoboWhatever

The third is most euphonious to my ear. This is a pretty arbitrary
naming issue however. Unless you think all GNOME IDL interfaces
everywhere should be prefixed with X or I?

 - Maciej