Re: libgda++

[rodrigo linuxave net]

Laurent Marzullo wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Rodrigo:
> You don't have to change header for including
>
> #ifdef  __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> #endif
>
> I've create one new header file for each of gda one like this:
> (Ex for gda-client.h)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> #ifndef _C_GDA_CLIENT_H
> #define _C_GDA_CLIENT_H
>
> extern "C"
> {
> # include <gda-client.h>
> }
>
> #endif
> ----------

I don't think this is the best way to do it. The fact is that all C header
files SHOULD include the "#if defined __cplusplus" stuff, to allow C++
programs to use the library. I mean, I don't think there will be too many C++
programs using the C lib when your C++ wrapper is done, but to be correct,
the C header files muts include. So, please, tell me which files are missing
this and I'll add it.


> ----------------------------------------------------
> And I call it "c-gda-client"
>
> I've also beginning to wrap the Gda_Provider structure. It's ok.
> but i must finalize it.
>
> So, I must comment it. Do you following comment syntax (As doxygen
> one or another) ?
>

we don't follow any comment convention, but to be similar with the rest, just
use old C comments (/* */), although I think you can use whichever you want,
since this is C++ and not C.

>
> Do you have preference about naming convention in libgda++ (or
> libgdacpp-client, libgdacpp-common, etc) ?
>

We thought at the beginning on this name (libgda*++), but somebody said that
this name will cause some problems in some UNIX versions (??).

So, I would go for one of the following (note that it's always
libgda-{client,server,common}, to be consistent with the other libraries):

* libgda-clientcpp, libgda-commoncpp, libgda-servercpp
* libgda-client++, libgda-common++, libgda-server++
* libgda-clientmm, libgda-commonmm, libgda-servermm (the mm is like in
GNOME--, GTK--, etc, the C++ wrappers for some of the GNOME libs)

I would really prefer ++, but if it's really true that it will cause problems
(is that true?)....

cheers