On 02/02/2015 11:24 AM, Keane, Erich wrote: > If that is the case, I'd say we should just go all-in on the IoTivity > name.
I agree here. Subjectively I noticed that the name is five syllables, so might feel a little bit longer. However for code it seems quite helpful. > 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. Yes. Java packages should be all lower-case. More importantly, any Oc prefix should be dropped. Prefixing like that is not a common Java practice; it's more seen in C#, MFC, etc. > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the > current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!). > Again, I agree and dropping prefixing would match C++ conventions. Subjectively I personally like lower-case namespaces better for C++. Among other things that matches common C++ libraries such as STL, Boost, etc. > 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. Yes, C is generally trickier. I've been trying to think of abbreviations, and perhaps "itvt" might work for a base. Then for connectivity abstraction "itvtca", "itvtCa" or "itvt_ca" might work.
