Hi all, during implementing SAGA in C++, we came upon a naming issue. Currently, the task factories are individual object types in the saga name space, so we have a saga::file_task_factory, saga::logical_file_task_factory etc. A better way to structure that might be (proposal), to have the task factories in the respective name spaces, i.e. saga::file::task_factory and sga::logical_file::task_factory etc. That would not change the look and feel of the API really, its basically about naming. However, the implementation is cleaner. One advantage is the following: If an enum gets defined in a class (as the flags for file opening), they have to be either redefined in the task factory with the same values (ugh), or need to be fully qualified in the task_factory (e.g.: my_task_factory.open (url, task::Create). Also Ugh. Having the task factory in the name space of the respective objects would resolve that. I am not sure about SIDL, but it might actually be an unclean point in the specification right now as well. As a side note, related to yesterdays question about what object should have the task model implemented: it might be best to include a marker interface, and to tag those objects in the spec. Thats the most explicit way I can think of right now. Comments, as usually, welcome... Very much so actually... Andre. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andre Merzky | phon: +31 - 20 - 598 - 7759 | | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) | fax : +31 - 20 - 598 - 7653 | | Dept. of Computer Science | mail: merzky@cs.vu.nl | | De Boelelaan 1083a | www: http://www.merzky.net | | 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+