Ioty for C is great, however what do we wish to do with the CA API? It is currently using the CA prefix. Do we wish to double those up, eliminate them entirely, or replace with Ioty?
For the includes, are we saying the include directory should now be formed like: "<iotivityRoot>/resource/csdk/include/iotivity/stack.h"? (note removal of the oc prefix in that file name)? For the C++ API, I definitely prefer the "iotivity" namespace, however I'd also like to remove the "OC" prefix that is present in a bunch of our class names. For Java, org.iotivity seems acceptable, however there TOO I'd suggest removal of "Oc" as a prefix. -Erich On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 20:47 +0000, Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > To all, > > Conversation of this topic has cooled. So the leading candidate seem to be: > * For C/C++, place the headers under iotivity such that includes would look > like > > #include "iotivity/stack.h" > > * For the C API, use "Ioty" as the prefix which leads to IotyDoResource > > * For the C++ API use a "org::iotivity" or "iotivity" namespace (I prefer > the later) > > * For java, use "org.iotivity" package space. > > Do we have any additional comments or suggestions? > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Hudson, > Douglas > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:13 AM > To: Philippe Coval > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity > > 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.coval at 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/ > . > _______________________________________________ > 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
