VL: Service namespace

[Katila Matti]

On Dec 6. 2007 18:35 Wally Ritchie wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 8:31 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>> Katila wrote:
>>> 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.

While I like short names I think mtl isn't widely known term. For
example neither google or V.E.R.A knows it:
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/vera/vera_14.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=%22Mobile+Termination+Layer%22&btnG=Search
Your search - "Mobile Termination Layer" - did not match any documents.

I happen to like the symbolism that freesmartphone.org derives from
freedesktop.org. For short name freedesktop.org is sometimes refered
with f-d-o. Thus, we could use f-s-o for short. Anyway, prefix is
something that is read once and newer afterwards.


>> 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.

If we are going to use terms used on the field we should use all terms
accordingly. And I think that would be wrong option. If that way is
chosen I need to step aside from the discussion since I have not
enough experties from wireless communications. This would limit
developers who are familiar with normal phone - even the API will be
all the things used on a normal phone. I'm not saying this because of
I like to join the discussion but I'm scare of the hobbyist who want
to use the API but find it cryptic.


> 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.

I will post our proposal after this email of how we used to see the
interface. It can be used as a start for discussion.


>>> 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.

I add a third vote for initial caps, e.g. org.bluez.Adapter.GetName.


   -Matti