| < Previous by Date | Date Index | Next by Date > |
| < Previous in Thread | Thread Index | Next in Thread > |
|
We decided that we preferred to keep it
resip because: -- resip is a token that has some meaning
and not likely to collide with anything -- the primary user of the utility code is
resip, and this will convey that -- changing it is a massive PITA, and
people are already used to resip::data in their apps that use bits of resip --Derek CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email and any files transmitted with it contains
proprietary information and, unless expressly stated otherwise, all contents
and attachments are confidential. This email is intended for the addressee(s)
only and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee,
any disclosure, distribution, printing or copying of the contents of this email
or its attachments, or any action taken in reliance on it, is unauthorized and
may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender
immediately and then delete this email and any copies of it. Thank you for your
co-operation. From:
resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Alan Hawrylyshen I also like it, but have one additional question: - Did we consider moving the rutil stuff into it's own namespace?
(rutil)? It seems to make more sense, I am also open to the argument that it
would be a massive port for all deployed code, and therefore, inspite of being
a fine idea, it is impractical. Thanks Alan On 18-Aug-05, at 5:27 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
I have no strong concerns with this
proposal. /a |