agree agree agree

only thing is maybe we should have bc::wallet bc::client

On 16/05/14 00:47, William Swanson wrote:
> Hello,
> When we were in Toronto, we talked about renaming all our libraries to
> use the libbitcoin-* scheme, like libbitcoin-wallet,
> libbitcoin-client, etc.. Well, I have started working on a
> libbitcoin-client library, and have run into a few questions.
>
> First, where should the headers go? Right now, we have
> /usr/include/bitcoin/*, /usr/include/wallet/*, etc., but this doesn't
> seem right for the new system. Eric has been moving things towards a
> single master header per library, so it's somewhat redundant having
> the library name in the path as well. Perhaps the layout should go
> like this:
>
> /usr/include/bitcoin/client.hpp (master library include)
> /usr/include/bitcoin/wallet.hpp (master library include)
> /usr/include/bitcoin/client/*.hpp (internal headers)
> /usr/include/bitcoin/wallet/*.hpp (internal headers)
>
> The second question is, what should we do with the namespaces? Right
> now, we have libbitcoin::, bc:: (which maps to libbitcoin::),
> libwallet::, and so forth. Maybe we should do what boost does, and
> have bitcoin::wallet, bitcoin::client, and such for the various child
> libraries? Otherwise, we could do the stl thing and just put them all
> in one big namespace.
>
> Finally, what should we do with the dllexport macros? They aren't
> contained in any namespace, and yet we want them to stay short. Right
> now we have BC_API, BCW_API, and so forth, one for each library. Would
> it make sense to have a single BC_API macro, defined in a central
> place, that we use for all libs? Or is the one-macro-per-library thing
> accomplishing something I am not aware of?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -William
> _______________________________________________
> Libbitcoin mailing list
> Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>