Re: [boost] [interprocess, aka shmem] Some proposals for open issues from the review

From: Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar (zigmar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-26 04:07:02

On 2/25/06, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > * Library name:
> Although Peter likes IPC, I agree with Rene agree that InterProcess is
> much more descriptive (and pronounceable) so I'm taking
> Boost.InterProcess (boost::interprocess namespace, boost/interprocess
> and libs/boost/interprocess directories). I think
>
> namespace ipc = boost::interprocess;
>
> will be common, though.
It seems to be a bit too long. Although, I understand the desire to
make the name more descriptive...

> > * Class names:
> mmapped_file -> mapped_file
>
> named_xxx_object -> xxx_services so
>
> shared_memory_services
> mapped_file_services
> heap_memory_services
> external_memory_services
I don't like "services" much, especially the plural form. The object
of this class would be number of services or a single service? And
after all, this class is just more convenient and high-level interface
to lower-level interfaces, so I don't think "services" is a good name.
Maybe just leave "named_" prefix, but cut out the "_object" which
doesn't add much information. Then you will have
named_shared_memory
named_mapped_file
named_heap_memory
etc.

--
Best regards,
Zigmar