Re: [PATCH 1/3] dmloader: COM cleanup of IDirectMusicLoader object.

[Christian Costa]

2012/11/8 Michael Stefaniuc
> On 11/08/2012 01:13 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
> > 2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <[e-mail] >
> > On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > But using just the capitalized letters from the name of the COM
> > class as
> > > a prefix and skipping the "Impl" would be in hindsight the better
> > > standard. There are still 170+ COM interfaces to clean up which is
>
> a
> > > sizable number regardless of it being just 13% of the total
>
> interface
> > > implementations, so we could still change the standard, especially
>
> as
> > > the existing function/method naming standard is not strictly
> > enforced; I
> > > didn't bother changing "offenders" if the name was reasonable.
> > > But I'm deferring this decision to Jacek / Alexandre as they are
>
> the
> > > drivers of the COM standardization in Wine. I don't mind too much
>
> as I
> > > can work with both patterns.
> > >
> > I think the only reasonable naming convention is to name things after
> > the implementation structure. In this case that would still end up
> > being "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl_...", but for a slightly different
> > reason. Where I agree with Nikolay is that "dmloader" would be a much
> > nicer name than "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl" for the implementation
> > structure as well, in which case you would also end up with
> > "dmloader_..." for method implementations.
> >
> >
> > dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method or dmloader_Method?
>
> dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method

Henri said the other. It seems there is no consensus. ;)
> > I was just saying removing the interface name was not a good thing imo
> > or am I missing something?
>
> Right, the interface name needs to be there as it matches the COBJMACROS
> name. Basically the C macro with a prefix.

It is what I was thinking. Match the macros and just add a class prefix if
needed
or just _ to avoid the conflict.

Christian