> On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: > > > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd > > > remove the current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!).
Any thoughts on what we should do for the C API? I agree with a previous post saying that prefixing the C API with iot is a presumptuous. However, I also think prefixing each C API function with Iotivity (e.g. IotivityDoResource) might be a bit cumbersome. But unless someone comes up with a better alternative, I think we may be stuck with it. Thoughts? Doug -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 7:48 PM To: Macieira, Thiago Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] API Naming convention for IoTivity On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:46 -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: > > > 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. > > To match the Standard Library and Boost, we should also begin using > names_with_underscore, which we don't. > > Instead, we're following more the Java / Qt model with CamelCase names > and where types always start with a capital letter. Yeah, this is perhaps not a bad point to switch names to underscores if we feel it is important, however I believe CamelCase was specified when the project began. > > Sudarshan wrote: > > My suggestion is to wait for the connectivity-abstraction branch to > > be merged with master and then do these changes. Otherwise, it will > > add complexity in merging those two branches. > > Agreed. The fewer branches outstanding, the smaller the surface. > > That said, should we begin using the new style for any new code? > I don't think we should diverge names, that would just be confusing. I would suggest sticking to where we are for now, and doing all the name changes in a single patch. _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
