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
First of all, congratulations and thank you for finally publishing the project on NuGet 🎉
I fully understand that this is very subjective, however here are my 2 cents.
I think that the package IDs should have a different naming structure. Typically, dots in .NET world represent namespace or subproject separators. This means that QuickFIXn.FIX4.1 is logically divided into:
I think that the project and assembly naming structure is much more clear, e.g:
QuickFIXn.FIX44 instead of QuickFIXn.FIX4.4
QuickFIXn.FIX50SP2 instead of QuickFIXn.FIX5.0SP1
So that FIX44 or FIX50SP2 represent the spec version as a single entity.
I understand that this would break backwards compatibility for those who already downloaded the packages but I strongly believe that it would be better to change the naming in the long run.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
First of all, congratulations and thank you for finally publishing the project on NuGet 🎉
I fully understand that this is very subjective, however here are my 2 cents.
I think that the package IDs should have a different naming structure. Typically, dots in .NET world represent namespace or subproject separators. This means that QuickFIXn.FIX4.1 is logically divided into:
This is even worse with QuickFIXn.FIX5.0SP2:
I think that the project and assembly naming structure is much more clear, e.g:
QuickFIXn.FIX44
instead ofQuickFIXn.FIX4.4
QuickFIXn.FIX50SP2
instead ofQuickFIXn.FIX5.0SP1
So that FIX44 or FIX50SP2 represent the spec version as a single entity.
I understand that this would break backwards compatibility for those who already downloaded the packages but I strongly believe that it would be better to change the naming in the long run.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: