Not a member, but I believe claiming the primary name of a problem space like "iot" for a specific implementation will confuse developers - especially those that target applications for mixed requirements
Brad Nicholas http://www.linkedin.com/in/bradn > On Jan 27, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday 27 January 2015 14:01:06 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: >> That is a good point. The naming convention should reflect the open source >> project and not necessarily the consortium. > > Here's another idea: let's just use "iot" for C++ namespace, for include path > (/usr/include/iot/*) and for C prefix. > > It's not unprecedented: ICU claimed /usr/include/unicode/* and GtkWebKit > claimed libwebkit.so. > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
