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(a)googlemail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:43 PM
To: <arnaud.champion(a)devatom.fr>
Cc: "Justin Clift" <jclift(a)redhat.com>; <libvir-list(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [libvirt] C# bindings (Was: First patch)
2010/10/18 <arnaud.champion(a)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