> Hello guys!
Hi!
> I want to check this with you before I import anything into the cvs
> repository.
>
> Is important to standardize the filenames, classes etc. So far there
> where two types different names for classes, I had MSNClassName from
> the first versions of the code, then I incorporated the
> BMsnServerHandlers. I like the java standard for class names where
> each
> word of the name is capitalized, MsnClassName, and that would be the
> name of the file, just adding the extension .h/.cpp
> Also, I was thinking to take MsnOtherWindows.h/.cpp and put every
> class
> in it's own file.
I agree with the FirstLettersCapitalised naming scheme.
> Another thing is the directory structure, so far there is only a src/
>
> directory and all the code is in there. We could organize it a little
> better, as Simon suggested. I have attached my suggestion, take a
> look.
This is much better.
Just a few changes:
- Project files (.proj and .rsrc) should be "Bme.proj" (we also need to
decide between "bme" "Bme" "BMe" or "BME"!)
- Remove spaces in folder names ("Msn Protocol" to either "MsnProtocol"
or just "Protocol" (I don't see us supporting multi protocols, although
I could be wrong)).
- I don't know if we want seperate folders for old and new UI. I want
to change quite a lot, add some windows and remove some others, but I
could just edit the existing files I suppose. However that means any
work-in-progress stuff won't have a full CVS history. For example, the
conv window will use a new BListView sytle - this will probably take a
while until it works as well as a BTextView approach, so either we will
be left with a CVS version that doesn't work very well for a while, or
I will have to develop it until it's finished and then commit it all at
once. Neither of these are very good solutions IMHO, so I'd prefer two
directories - a "New_UI" one and a "BeMSN_UI" one. That way we can work
together on the new UI in CVS, without having to sacrafice the current
UI, which works fine already.
Thoughts?
> Please let me know what you think.
> Thanks,
> Daniel
Simon
|
