To all, This is what I have heard to date regarding API naming convention: * The OC prefix does not mean much. Maybe it should be changed to something like OIC * OIC would tie the open source project to the standard group which may not be desirable. [Me] * How about using 'iot' [Thiago] * 'IoT' is too broad [Victor, Brad, Philippe] * Move the header files to 'iotivity/*.h' [Philippe]
In general, I like Philippe's last suggestion. See his gerrit submission list below. This does not address the API convention aspects. A couple things are needed: 1) A C++ namespace (currently OC) 2) A C prefix (currently OC) 3) A Java package [I am not sure what the package is] Do we have any recommendations or additional comments? Pat -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:16 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity On Tuesday 27 January 2015 14:01:06 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > That is a good point. The naming convention should reflect the open > source project and not necessarily the consortium. Here's another idea: let's just use "iot" for C++ namespace, for include path (/usr/include/iot/*) and for C prefix. It's not unprecedented: ICU claimed /usr/include/unicode/* and GtkWebKit claimed libwebkit.so. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ 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/20150202/41ad8f2f/attachment.p7s>
