On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:43:50PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
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
Personally I'd make the naming look much more like the Java bindings. Instead of following the C naming directly which is fugly for non-C languages, have a 'libvirt' namespace, and then use plain names like 'Connect', 'Domain', 'Network' for the objects and strip the prefix off the method names to 'Connect.open', 'Domain.dump_xml' etc Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|