On 11.06.2016 10:51, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 11/06/16 08:35, George Kiagiadakis wrote:
On 06/10/2016 06:55 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 10/06/16 17:49, Stepan Salenikovich wrote:
[...]
#2 CM should not be named after the implementation because that can
also
lead to confusion between the two projects (the telepathy CM and the
implementation software). See the example of telepathy-sofiasip that
became telepathy-rakia (mentioned in the spec as well). This is also a
factor against telepathy-ring (or telepathy-ring.cx perhaps) because
ring.cx is another software. You don't want users to think that this
telepathy CM is somehow part of ring.cx or it can be used to talk to
people only if they are using ring.cx on the other side. Maybe another
implementation will pop up in the future and then ring.cx will be
irrelevant as a name.
This is not so clear cut.
I chose the name telepathy-resiprocate for the resiprocate-based CM
because telepathy-resiprocate is maintained in the reSIProcate
repository:
https://github.com/resiprocate/resiprocate/tree/master/apps/telepathy
Maybe an exception should be made so that when a CM is officially part
of a protocol implementation (reSIProcate is a SIP implementation),
then
it can use the name of the implementation.
Hmm, by the rule this was probably a bad choice, but I can see how you
mean it. Being part of the same project as the implementation maybe
makes those arguments less strong. I guess it remains to be seen whether
this will have the same problem as tp-sofiasip in the future.
I think that the spec is clear about that, though. Quote:
"Connection manager names SHOULD NOT be the same as the name of a
library on which they are based."
Regards,
George
_______________________________________________
telepathy mailing list
telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
