In my opinion, IoTivity should try to improve the consistency and review process for public APIs (i.e., any changes to header files published as part of the build, for apps to use). Is this the purview of any maintainer now? If not, I would recommend that some maintainer (new or existing) be designated. Such a maintainer would ensure consistent naming and capitalization conventions across public header files, ensure clear (and hopefully grammatically correct) comments in such files, and watch for any breaking changes that would affect apps building on a previous release.
From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ?? Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:59 PM To: Alex Kelley via iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: Re: [dev] Improving public APIs in IoTivity Hi Alex, Its my bad. OCAddPreconfigPIN is not used anywhere. Also OCProvisionPreconfPin is an API for transmitting pre-configured PIN to another device. And SetPreconfigPin is API for loading pre-configured PIN into memory. (Actually, API description is wrong.) I will remove the OCAddPreconfigPIN and make a JIRA issue to address your opinion. Thanks, Chul Lee. --------- Original Message --------- Sender : Alex Kelley via iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>> Date : 2016-10-28 09:29 (GMT+9) Title : [dev] Improving public APIs in IoTivity Hi Everyone, I was recently working on some code around the Multiple Ownership Transfer (MOT) code and while doing this I ran into a couple of issues surrounding the API surface for MOT. Specifically I hit the following: ? It wasn?t always clear what was considered a public API vs an internal API. ? The names of similar public APIs were different. o For example the following APIs are related but differed slightly (specifically around the Preconf*Pin part of each name): ? OCAddPreconfigPIN ? OCProvisionPreconfPin ? SetPreconfigPin Are there any guidelines that exist that would help solve the points above? Is there anything we can do to make this process better? When we get to public APIs we should strive to have consistency and to make it clear for developers which APIs they should use. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ 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 [cid:image001.gif at 01D2307F.4E5F1640] [http://ext.samsung.net/mail/ext/v1/external/status/update?userid=chuls.lee&do=bWFpbElEPTIwMTYxMDI4MDA1ODMyZXBjbXMxcDc1M2NiOTlkNTk5NWJkM2RlOGZlODMwOWI4MGQ1NTJhMiZyZWNpcGllbnRBZGRyZXNzPWlvdGl2aXR5LWRldkBsaXN0cy5pb3Rpdml0eS5vcmc_] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161028/4e02e38e/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13402 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161028/4e02e38e/attachment.gif>
