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/
                                                                       .

Reply via email to