On 19/08/07, Peter Dimov <pdimov@pdimov.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I like the cgi::xcgi_service scheme and the cgi::service typedef'ing depending on what headers are included. How about just providing xcgi::service? Then the appropriate protocol can be chosen via 'using namespace xcgi' or 'namespace cgi = xcgi'.
This is something I've been meaning to get feedback on, actually. The problem with giving things their own namespace is IMO it gets a bit ugly, for example: boost::cgi::fcgi::service service; The thing I've been wondering is about a single library dumping more than one namespace into the boost namespace, so you'd have boost::cgi, boost::fcgi and boost::scgi. I guessed that idea would be shot down in flames though. Why do you not like the typedef-header scheme? Too fickle? Regards, Darren