>     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@??? <mailto:Libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
>     https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin