Given that the primary protocol in the library is called Service you might
consider calling your library "service" or "services" or something along
those lines to avoid confusion with the other library. Even if the
namespace will disambiguate things for coding, in emails, bug reports and
other
Changed to system ns to system.core. Thanks for the suggestion, was meaning
to do that. Sorry about the name collision. I just became aware of the
other system library a few days ago. Haven't had an opportunity to think of
something more clever. I'm open to suggestions.
David
--
You received
You know about https://github.com/danielsz/system, right?
понедельник, 8 июня 2015 г., 17:53:08 UTC+3 пользователь David Sargeant
написал:
>
> Differences from component:
>
>
>1. No need to explicitly define dependencies for a particular service.
>Simply order the services in the system
You may want to consider the name, as there's already a library called
"System" that does something similar: https://github.com/danielsz/system
Also you're using single-segment namespaces (i.e. "system" rather than
something like "system.core"). Single segment namespaces are generally
discouraged,
Differences from component:
1. No need to explicitly define dependencies for a particular service.
Simply order the services in the system map to facilitate dependency needs.
2. Configuration is first-class. To start the system or a particular
service, a config value must be passed.
