Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Updated 0.4 integration branch

[Glyn M. <gly...@gm...>]

Hi John,

2009/11/17 John P. Feltz <jf...@ov...>

>
> Glyn Matthews wrote:
> > 1. boost::network::uri::uri and boost::network::uri::http::uri have a
> > redundant namespace.  I understand that the directives maybe shouldn't be
> in
> > boost::network, but a different named namespace might be better so that
> we
> > could have boost::network::uri and boost::network::http::uri.
> >
> I think that directives which perform requirements of the uri API should
> be within a boost::network::uri namespace.  If it handles something
> specific to http uri -though not necessarily at exactly
> boost::network::uri::http-  either the associated tag should be within
> ::http, or the function or class which handles http specific things
> should be. So in short there is no easy answer, it depends on things
> like cross cutting concerns, and what boost::network::uri means ( I'll
> put what I've discussed here in the design spec for revision).
>
>
Right.  I'm struggling to come up with an alternative name that would allow
`boost::network::uri` as a class name.  Also, if we continue with
`boost::network::uri` as a namespace, I think protocol specific stuff should
be in namespace `boost::network::{protocol}`, so the HTTP URI directives
should be in `boost::network::http::uri`. :)
 G