Neil Groves wrote:
Hi,
My opinions are made inline...
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Hi,
Inspired by Jean-Louis question about what to put to namespace detail, I would be interested learning about rationale of name of the namespace detail (sometimes details or impl too).
Recently, I've participated in a very interesting discussion, on ACCU members mailing list, about prefixes and suffixes like Base or _base nad Impl or _impl, as misused, irrelevant and confusing, meaningless, etc. For example, how to properly name elements of PIMPL idiom and similar.
During the discussion I suggested that 'detail' is a good name for namespace dedicated to implementation details being not a part of public interface of a component. I got answer that it as the same issues (it's meaningless) as Impl etc.
Why? Could you please provide details on what their responses are?
The discussion was too long I think (archives are not public) but generally the conclusion was that impl and base suffixes do not carry much information. For example that I put under discussion, the PIMPL-based FileReader using Impl suffixes etc.:
class Reader { const std::auto_ptr<ReaderBase> pimpl_; public: // ... }; class ZipReaderImpl : public ReaderBase {...}; class BZipReaderImpl : public ReaderBase {...};
we came to the improved version:
class FileReader { class Body; const std::auto_ptr<Body> handle; public: // ... }; class ZipFileReader : public FileReader::Body {...}; class BZipFileReader : public FileReader::Body {...};
I agree that the latter is more verbose telling what is what, and placing elements better regarding concepts it uses (handle-body).
The ZipFileReader is now less obviously something I should not be using, in my opinion.
In this particular example, ZipFileReader is an internal startegy type accessible through FileReader. I'm sorry for lack of precision. IOW, FileReader can be a handle to Zip or BZip reader Body.
Given that, namespace detail was judged as similarly not much informative as Impl and Base suffix.
It tells me I as a consumer of the library should not be using it, and that is all it should be telling me. It is a neat orthogonal description nicely separated from other names.
Now I see, why good naming in software craft is a difficult art. I agree, but things may have different (so is understanding) meaning for different people.
I hope it clarifies the point.
Has there ever been any evidence that maintenance was more difficult with the detail namespace approach? Have there been defects caused by the namespace detail approach?
I have not seen any. It's just a discussion on pros and cons, I believe.
If neither of these things have happened then it doesn't seem wise to focus effort improving this idiom.
Yes. Just to clarify, you call "namespace detail" as idiom here, right?
To be honest, I don't see how ZipFileReader is less clearly something I shouldn't be using despite it playing the "Body" role. It was clearer in the original that I should use the handle.
As I tried to clarify above, ZipFileReader lives in private space, most likely in namespace detail (or private_). It's my bad, I gave slightly incomplete example. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net