I’m finishing up two Cinder Blocks at the moment and want to publish them soon. I just have a question about how the blocks should be implemented namespace-wise. Up until now I’ve seen a couple ways of packing blocks in namespaces:
1- Blocks like Cinder-Http or Cinder-OpenCl which puts classes and folders in
cinder::nameOfBlock namespace, like
2- Blocks like Cinder-UI or sharkbox-FullDome which uses the author’s name/alias as the namespace, like
3- Blocks like Cinder-KCB2 which use the block’s name as namespaces, like
Judging by the fact that there are already different ways, I’d say there are no suggested conventions but I figured I’d ask once before getting into releasing Cinder Blocks, just to be sure. So please ignore this question if it’s lame or too specific:
Is there any convention which is preferred by Cinder’s community or makers when it comes to blocks and namespaces? I’m guessing since the blocks are intended to be used along with libcinder then putting them in
cinder namespace makes sense (much like the first method) but then again I might be totally wrong, for instance if the makers believe that the cinder namespace should be used for blocks officially released by Cinder and for its core feutures.