To all, BTW, I missed Jay's suggestion to use 'IoTVT'. Sorry, Jay.
Pat -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Lankswert, Patrick Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 3:47 PM To: Hudson, Douglas; Philippe Coval Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity 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-boun...@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.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/ . _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 7198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150209/9ad1076c/attachment.p7s>
