You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Backend namespace should be under Rml, so that it can be referended as Rml::Backend::. Backend namespace is too generic and the Rml namespace exists for that reason.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I see your viewpoint. Right now, the motivation behind having the simple namespace boils down to this statement (from the readme):
The provided renderers and platforms are intended to be usable as-is by client projects without modifications, thereby circumventing the need to write custom interfaces. [...] The provided backends on the other hand are not intended to be used directly by client projects, but rather copied and modified as needed. They are intentionally light-weight and implement just enough functionality to make the included samples run, while being simple to understand and build upon by users.
But I suspect that people start using the backend as is. And perhaps that is fine too for some use cases. I guess it's a broader question of how the backends should be used and integrate into peoples existing code, and I'm sure there are a ton of different use cases to consider.
But in any case, it shouldn't hurt to add it into the Rml namespace, so I might just go ahead and make that change.
Backend namespace should be under Rml, so that it can be referended as
Rml::Backend::
.Backend
namespace is too generic and the Rml namespace exists for that reason.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: