Service namespace

[Wally Ritchie]

On Dec 6, 2007 8:31 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mlauer at vanille-media.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
I have no problem with this but a few months ago I registered
OpenMTL.org in anticipation of this.
I'm happy to contribute that domain to this effort. This would make
the namespace org.openmtl,
the MTL standing for Mobile Termination Layer which is what this
effort is about. org.openmtl would be about the same length as openmtl
and much shorter than org.freesmartphone. I'm ok with
either term but I do prefer shorter strings, especially for prefixes.
Anyone that wants to know
what org.xyzblahblah prefix means can just type in the corresponding URL.

> >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.
>
Perhaps I'm being too limiting but it seems to me we are clearly in
the MOBILE space, i.e. mobile
telephony. The term MS (Mobile Station) has been used for decades
(PLMN). Especially because
this is a global effort, I think we need to use the most applicable
terms from international
standards unless there is a good reason not to.

I think it will take a bit of time to arrive at the optimal factoring
for objects and services.
Since we are abopting a DBus model, the service breakdown is rather
important. Perhaps
we should focus more on the individual methods and signals needed.
After we have a
reasonably complete list we can then discuss factoring them.

> >It seems that DBus uses capitalized 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's a religious issues. Personally i prefer initial caps and abhor
underscores. But when in
Rome ;). We would follow Bluez and others unless there is a compelling
reason not to.
>
> >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!
Ditto
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smartphones-standards mailing list
> Smartphones-standards at lists.linuxtogo.org
>
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/smartphones-standards
>