On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:04 -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday 09 February 2015 20:58:37 Keane, Erich wrote: > > Ioty for C is great, however what do we wish to do with the CA API? It > > is currently using the CA prefix. Do we wish to double those up, > > eliminate them entirely, or replace with Ioty? > > Let me ask a few questions so we make a decision: > > 1) is this user-visible API? If not, then choose whatever and it doesn't > matter.
We don't intend them to use it, however it IS C, so it is in the global namespace. Additionally, a few types from it are exposed (CAToken). > > 2) if it's visible to the user, can it be used without the rest of IoTivity? > I.e., is it a generic abstraction for connectivity that would allow me to > send > arbitrary unicast and multicast packets of my choosing? I don't see a reason why they couldn't, but it isn't intended to be used separately IIRC. > If it is independent of the rest of IoTivity, give it a generic name > independent of IoTivity. And move it to a separate library too. > > if it's inextricably linked to IoTivity, use the same naming convention. No > exceptions. > > > For the includes, are we saying the include directory should now be > > formed like: > > "<iotivityRoot>/resource/csdk/include/iotivity/stack.h"? (note removal > > of the oc prefix in that file name)? > > I'd prefer: > <iotivityroot>/include/iotivity/stack.h The issue with that is we also have the 'service' directory at that root, which would be awkward I suspect. > > If necessary, I can supply a script to create the include hierarchy. We use > it > for Qt, so that each header is next to the sources (e.g., > src/corelib/tools/qstring.cpp and src/corelib/tools/qstring.h), but also > found > in <root>/include/QtCore/qstring.h. > > > For the C++ API, I definitely prefer the "iotivity" namespace, however > > I'd also like to remove the "OC" prefix that is present in a bunch of > > our class names. > > Agreed. No "org" prefix, no one does that in C++. > > > For Java, org.iotivity seems acceptable, however there TOO I'd suggest > > removal of "Oc" as a prefix. > > Agreed too.
