Service namespace

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Katila wrote:

>I was filling some information regarding to http://www.freesmartphone.org/wiki/index.php/Standards/OpenPhoneServerAPI#Namespaces_.2F_Subsystems
>and thought that it would be better if namespace issues are handled with common agreement.

Right, very good point.

>So, I propose that all standards within freesmartphone.org use:

>     "org.freesmartphone"       prefix in namespace.

Agreed.

>For a phone interface there are some proposals:
>- technology driven choice, e.g. "org.freesmartphone.gsm", or
>- standard's name driven choice, e.g. "org.freesmartphone.OpenPhoneServer"
>- possibly more...

>While I don't think that technology driven choice is particularly good (new technologies will follow) it's easy for people to catch for, i.e. "GSM".
>Personally I like more "org.freesmartphone.PhoneServer" than technology driven model  (open is more or less same as free, thus open can be droped).
>Perhaps I would use just "org.freesmartphone.telephone" (or telephony)  to get less redundancy with "phone" word.

Yes, as technologies change more often than concepts, we should lean
towards concept driven names. I would vote for

org.freesmartphone.Telephony as prefix.

>It seems that DBus uses capitalised nameing convention after the organization prefix (http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html#standard-interfaces).

Yeah, to be honest, I don't like that, but it is wide spread enough
that we should not create confusion by ignoring it.

>It would be good idea to decide the nameing concept. Although, it might be more or less personal taste.

Absolutely - thanks for kicking off this discussion!

P.S. Next week I will have some good amounts of time to do much more work
on the wiki... ;)

Regards,

:M:
-- 
Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de