Hi, everyone,
I agree on the idea that we should drop the namespace ?oc? or ?oic?
since they are not representing the IoTivity project.
And basically do agree on the idea that we need to separate the namespace
naming convention for c & c++ layer.
However, won?t this different conventions make developers confuse?
Anyway, if I may suggest namespaces for the IoTivity project,
I?d like to suggest ?iotivtiy? for c++ & ?IoTVT? for c.
And for the other packages(or modules) in c++ could have their own namespace
like..
- api : iotivity::api
- services : iotivity::ssm, iotivity::nm, etc?
- security : iotivity::security
Any thought?
Thank you.
Jay.
> 2015. 2. 3., ?? 9:28, ??? <myeong.jeong at samsung.com> ??:
>
>
> Hi,
> I think we'd better separate C++ namespace and C prefix.
> For C prefix, 'IOTVT' or 'IoTVT' can represent our open source.
> And, we don't need any other prefix such as 'IOTVTCA'.
> One prefix makes easier to share the data structure among the C components.
>
> For C++ namespace, I think each layer can have each namespace.
> for example, 'iotivity' for base C++ component, 'iotivity::xxx' for primitive
> services.
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards.
> /**
> * @name MyeongGi Jeong
> * @office +82-31-279-9172
> * @mobile +82-10-3328-1130
> * @email myeong.jeong at samsung.com <mailto:myeong.jeong at
> samsung.com>
> */
>
>
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> Sender : Jon A. Cruz<jonc at osg.samsung.com <mailto:jonc at osg.samsung.com>>
> Date : 2015-02-03 05:05 (GMT+09:00)
> Title : Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity
>
> On 02/02/2015 11:24 AM, Keane, Erich wrote:
> > If that is the case, I'd say we should just go all-in on the IoTivity
> > name.
>
> I agree here. Subjectively I noticed that the name is five syllables, so
> might feel a little bit longer. However for code it seems quite helpful.
>
>
> > We'd have to decide how important the capitalization is.
> >
> > I like org.iotivity.base for Java (perhaps org.Iotivity.base?), however
> > I'd remove the Oc prefix.
>
> Yes. Java packages should be all lower-case.
>
> More importantly, any Oc prefix should be dropped. Prefixing like that
> is not a common Java practice; it's more seen in C#, MFC, etc.
>
>
> > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the
> > current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!).
> >
>
> Again, I agree and dropping prefixing would match C++ conventions.
> Subjectively I personally like lower-case namespaces better for C++.
> Among other things that matches common C++ libraries such as STL, Boost,
> etc.
>
>
> > The C prefix is one that is going to be a bit of a pain I think. We
> > currently have CA (for connectivity Abstraction) and OC (for our OC
> > items), though I'd prefer we chose 1 (or compound for CA). I think
> > Iotivity is too long of a prefix for C, and I also share the issues
> > previously stated with using IOT.
>
> Yes, C is generally trickier. I've been trying to think of
> abbreviations, and perhaps "itvt" might work for a base. Then for
> connectivity abstraction "itvtca", "itvtCa" or "itvt_ca" might work.
>
> _______________________________________________
> iotivity-dev mailing list
> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org <mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>
> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> <https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev>
> <201502032128659_Z5JE7EUA.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> iotivity-dev mailing list
> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150203/a17436eb/attachment.html>
