On quinta-feira, 3 de mar?o de 2016 08:38:12 PST Maloor, Kishen wrote: > Thiago, > > If I understood both of you correctly, I think Uze is confused > by your example in which you mentioned that "com.samsung.freezer? > MAY have a property ?temp? because its already reserved by some OCF > standard resource (from the OCF resource spec). > He probably misunderstood that it SHOULD, and so IoTivity must > have to constantly track updates to the OCF resource spec to add > new rules for allowing usage of newly reserved property names.
IoTivity has to do nothing. The application developer needs to choose property names that are allowed by the spec and will pass certification. We can't prevent them from doing something that will cause a certification failure. > But if ?rep? isn?t coming back, it might be helpful, for the sake > of clarity, to call out a simple rule of thumb in which all vendor > specified resources must use the x_? nomenclature for all their > representation and custom common properties regardless of whether > they?re reserved. Right, I think that's better. The only non-"x_" properties in vendor-specific resources should be the common properties. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
