If that is the case, I'd say we should just go all-in on the IoTivity name.
We'd have to decide how important the capitalization is. I like org.iotivity.base for Java (perhaps org.Iotivity.base?), however I'd remove the Oc prefix. For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!). The C prefix is one that is going to be a bit of a pain I think. We currently have CA (for connectivity Abstraction) and OC (for our OC items), though I'd prefer we chose 1 (or compound for CA). I think Iotivity is too long of a prefix for C, and I also share the issues previously stated with using IOT. On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 19:19 +0000, Kourt, Tim A wrote: > To All, > > Currently, we use "org.iotivity.base" as a Java package name and the class > prefix is "Oc". > > Thanks, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces > at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Lankswert, Patrick > Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 10:49 AM > To: Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity > > To all, > > This is what I have heard to date regarding API naming convention: > * The OC prefix does not mean much. Maybe it should be changed to something > like OIC > * OIC would tie the open source project to the standard group which may not > be desirable. [Me] > * How about using 'iot' [Thiago] > * 'IoT' is too broad [Victor, Brad, Philippe] > * Move the header files to 'iotivity/*.h' [Philippe] > > In general, I like Philippe's last suggestion. See his gerrit submission list > below. > This does not address the API convention aspects. A couple things are > needed: > 1) A C++ namespace (currently OC) > 2) A C prefix (currently OC) > 3) A Java package [I am not sure what the package is] > > Do we have any recommendations or additional comments? > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago > Macieira > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:16 PM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity > > On Tuesday 27 January 2015 14:01:06 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > > That is a good point. The naming convention should reflect the open > > source project and not necessarily the consortium. > > Here's another idea: let's just use "iot" for C++ namespace, for include path > (/usr/include/iot/*) and for C prefix. > > It's not unprecedented: ICU claimed /usr/include/unicode/* and GtkWebKit > claimed libwebkit.so. > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
