----- Original Message ----- From: <strasser@uni-bremen.de> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [transaction] New Boost.Transaction library under discussion
I was on a long train ride today so I started putting together an initial code base for Transaction. and as always, the most obvious problems were overlooked: we have to find another name for the library/namespace, or for the transaction class:
namespace transaction{ class transaction; }
using namespace boost; using namespace transaction;
int main(){ boost::transaction::transaction tx; //namespace spec required }
I don't think this is acceptable, and I'd like to keep the name "transaction" for the transaction class. I've seen someone use "transaction_scope" instead but I don't think that makes sense.
any ideas for a namespace?
transactions?
also, would you like to make the usage of the transaction library by the individual libraries transparent to user wrt to namespaces?
e.g.
namespace persistent{ using namespace transaction; } namespace stldb{ using namespace transaction; }
on the one hand it's easier for the user. a beginner using only one of the transactional libraries isn't bothered with only one simple class being part of another library, from his perspective.
downsides on the other hand: - headers. you'd have boost/persistent/transaction.hpp, boost/stldb/transaction.hpp, ... and all they'd do is include boost/transaction/transaction.hpp and a "using" declaration. - it might be confusing that is_same<persistent::transaction,stldb::transaction>::value==true
Well, this do not concerns Boost.Transaction. From my side, I would let stm::transaction to refer to the single-phase transaction for STM. Some users can prefer to depend on only one library on particular contexts. Of course you can do it for Boost.Persistent. Best, Vicente