Hello,
IMHO, it would be good idea to use "usr" as a prefix.
For example,
pkgmgr_client_usr_xxx
pkgmgr_pkginfo_usr_get_xxx
because i think it is easy to name consitently and easy to use.
BTW, is it necessary to make pair of existing apis using "_usr_"?
It seems that use cases of those multi-usr related api in Appfw modules are just calling with getuid().
pkgmgr-server forks backend installer with setuid(), so the backend installer is running on user who request install pacakge and it calls above apis using getuid().
Furthermore, it is not allowed that running pkgcmd tool on root user.
And when launching applications, the daemon running on each users(like amd_session_agent) handles it.
But i don't know about modules on other framework or daemons, so i don't know about all use cases.
Every opinion will be appreciated.
Best regards,
Sangyoon
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Baptiste Durand<[email protected]>
Date : 2015-01-08 22:18 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [Dev] Naming convention of mutli-user related APIs in appfw
indeed there are some mistakes.
Dear Baptiste and other application framework's maintainersm,
I would like to ask about naming convention of multi-user related APIs of application framework.
There is unlikely consistent naming convention for it.
For instance, in the "slp-pkgmgr" repository, there are two APIs as below:
A) int pkgmgr_client_usr_activate_app(pkgmgr_client *pc, const char *appid, uid_t uid)
B) int pkgmgr_pkginfo_get_usr_pkginfo(const char *pkgid, uid_t uid,pkgmgr_pkginfo_h *handle);
The thing is that A added "_usr_" before verb, "activate", but B added "_usr_" after verb, "get"
Does anybody clarify and fix it?
Is it too late to fix it?
Thanks,
Best regards,
Sangyoon
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
--
Eurogiciel Vannes/FR
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
