On Friday 16 March 2007 10:19, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> Personally, I think it is ok to use the jstreams:: namespace. It makes
> it clear what belongs to the streams and what to the analysis part.
Take a look at;
It has 6 references to the jstreams namespace. We use the header files coming
from strigi, we link to strigi for that code. So, from a coding perspective
everything is strigi.
Thats not 'ok'.
It makes for hard to understand code as nobody understands you have to open
the strigi api dox to find these classes. This means hard to maintain as
It makes for fragile code.
Clucene has a copy of the classes, and you depend on strigi having an exect
copy of the code to make it all work.
You said clucene will not change it copy of the classes any other way from
strigi. Now, if you did get hold of that one crystal boll and can predict
the future, we are friends. :) If not we should follow the normal rules of
maintainable code and that includes minimizing dependencies.
I personally think you should accept this as a problem instead of stating the
above, and work towards a proper solution.