I like the ioty prefix for the C API. Upper or lower case? That is: IotyDoResource
Or iotyDoResource I think I prefer the uppercase version (e.g. IotyDoResource) as it is consistent with our current API names. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Coval [mailto:philippe.co...@open.eurogiciel.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 10:03 AM To: Hudson, Douglas Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Hudson, Douglas <douglas.hudson at intel.com> wrote: >> On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: >> > > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd may we also get inspiration from DNS hierarchy and java ie: use org::iotivity::lang use org::iotivity::utils This model is adopted by GCC gcj CNI model to map java classes to c++ classes and looked smart and nice to me. For C I like ioty prefix , it sounds almost like "iot" Note Intel OTC already use this marketing trick with dleyna as a dlna instance ( https://01.org/dleyna/ ) Now If each iot stack picks a letter then 26 competitors should be enough for the war on standards may this be discussed with those who are claiming to be or to use "iot" namespace. Regards -- mailto:philippe.coval at eurogiciel.fr -- gpg:0x467094BC xmpp:philippe.coval.pro at gmail.com https://dockr.eurogiciel.fr/blogs/embedded/author/pcl/ .