Re: [reSIProcate] directory reorg

[Alan Hawrylyshen <alan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm in favor of a reorg, here's my 2 cents:

If we do a 'utility' library. It should contain non-SIP stuff and me  
at the top-level.
It should install cleanly as a mini-package. It should contain a  
subset of the os stuff.

I'm not terribly fussed about the DNS stuff, but support separation,  
same comment: should be a mini-package (stand along library)

Namespaces: I'd like to see separate, but related namespaces for these.
Perhaps SfRutil (Sf for Sipfoundry) for the utils , etc?

I have already taken things like Data and Mutex and put them in a  
utilty library (rutil) in a local project once. It made things much  
easier for clients and re-use.

My 2 cents.

Alan

On 16-Aug-05, at 7:21 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> david Butcher wrote:
>
>
> > There is all sorts of resip specific crap in there.
>
> I'm thinking mostly the stuff currently in the os directory, most  
> of which is pretty generic.
>
>
>
> > I certainly don't want to be constrained by a bunch of unrelated  
> > projects when I go and tweak them.
>
> Speaking from the perspective of an MSRP developer, I agree.
>
> Actually, speaking from the perspective of a resip developer, I  
> think there should be some control rods in place to prevent  
> excessive tweaking of the most basic underlying classes as well.
>
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel