On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 12:46 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 01:11 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > - tracker_data_query_check_service(), I would probably call that > > tracker_data_query_file_exists(). We have this concept of "service" > > meaning a file and I really dislike that, but I can understand why we > > have a generic word to describe data. For this API, it is specific to > > files so I think it would be fine to use "file" instead of "service". > > Can't this function also be used e.g. with emails? Then maybe call the > function tracker_data_query_service_exists? > > I also dislike the confusion between service, service type, and file, > it's really used inconsistently. I'd just consistently use RDF > terminology to make it easier to understand, but I don't know how other > people would feel about a terminology change, Jamie? In RDF terminology, > we'd have resources (services/entities), classes (service types), and > properties (metadata fields). only file specific operations should use the name "file" generic ones should use service name so i agree with Juerg here you can rename Service to ServiceClass or ServiceType if you like jamie _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
