From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-27 12:37:18
> I don't like "services" much, especially the plural form. The object
> of this class would be number of services or a single service? And
> after all, this class is just more convenient and high-level interface
> to lower-level interfaces, so I don't think "services" is a good name.
> Maybe just leave "named_" prefix, but cut out the "_object" which
> doesn't add much information. Then you will have
> named_shared_memory
> named_mapped_file
> named_heap_memory
> etc.
Some users have suggested more descriptive names:
objects_in_shared_memory
objects_in_mapped_file
objects_in_heap_memory
objects_in_user_memory
A bit long but I think the class expresses very clearly its use. We can
make it shorter with "objects_in_shmem"/"objects_in_mfile", but is not
very pronounceable. This name issue is harder than the review! Comments?
Best,
Ion