Changelog update for file/datalake service for beta.5 #978
Conversation
katmsft
requested review from
antkmsft,
RickWinter,
vhvb1989 and
vinjiang
as code owners
|
Please apply the appropriate label, milestone, and self-assign PRs :) |
|
In case you missed it from the other PR, here are the relevant commits between the previous release and master, for reviewers to look through: |
This is a nice view. However, I don't think test-related changes are relevant in the changelog. |
| * Move header `azure/storage/files/datalake/datalake.hpp` to `azure/storage/files/datalake.hpp` | ||
| * Moved header `azure/storage/files/datalake/datalake.hpp` to `azure/storage/files/datalake.hpp` | ||
| * Moved returning model types and related functions in `Azure::Storage::Files::DataLake` to `Azure::Storage::Files::DataLake::Models`, and other code into `Azure::Storage::Files::DataLake::Details`. | ||
| * Renamed `Azure::Storage::Files::DataLake::ServiceClient` to `Azure::Storage::Files::DataLake::DataLakeServiceClient`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's interesting that we settled on this, i.e. adding a redundant name to the type.
I suspected callers to do DataLake::ServiceClient and now that would look like: DataLake::DataLakeServiceClient.
It's fine though. If the user cares, they can move ::DataLake into the using. I just don't know to which types we would add such prefixes. Definitely, not all of them, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original thought of calling everything ServiceClient was to avoid duplication. However, it is also true that by looking at ServiceClient, customer not knowing the service type is weird.
I'm leaning towards duplication for clarity, but not strongly.
|
/azp run cpp - storage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
No description provided.