On Monday 09 February 2015 20:58:37 Keane, Erich wrote: > 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?
Let me ask a few questions so we make a decision: 1) is this user-visible API? If not, then choose whatever and it doesn't matter. 2) if it's visible to the user, can it be used without the rest of IoTivity? I.e., is it a generic abstraction for connectivity that would allow me to send arbitrary unicast and multicast packets of my choosing? If it is independent of the rest of IoTivity, give it a generic name independent of IoTivity. And move it to a separate library too. if it's inextricably linked to IoTivity, use the same naming convention. No exceptions. > 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)? I'd prefer: <iotivityroot>/include/iotivity/stack.h If necessary, I can supply a script to create the include hierarchy. We use it for Qt, so that each header is next to the sources (e.g., src/corelib/tools/qstring.cpp and src/corelib/tools/qstring.h), but also found in <root>/include/QtCore/qstring.h. > 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. Agreed. No "org" prefix, no one does that in C++. > For Java, org.iotivity seems acceptable, however there TOO I'd suggest > removal of "Oc" as a prefix. Agreed too. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
