[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

[Dave Oran (oran)]

On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Massimo Gallo <massimo.gallo at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> The why is simple:
> 
> You use a lot of "generic component type" and very few "specific component type". You are imposing types for every component in order to handle few exceptions (segmentation, etc..). You create a rule (specify the component's type ) to handle exceptions!
> 
> I would prefer not to have typed components. Instead I would prefer to have the name as simple sequence bytes with a field separator.
Field separators are perhaps the most problematic cause of aliasing. They also break purely binary name components since they have to be escaped.

> Then, outside the name, if you have some components that could be used at network layer (e.g. a TLV field), you simply need something that indicates which is the offset allowing you to retrieve the version, segment, etc in the name…
Maybe we’re into aesthetics and not functionality but I tend to prefer self-describing data structures rather than ones with ancillary stuff like pointers into the middle.


> 
> 
> Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/09/2014 20:33, Mark Stapp wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/16/14 10:29 AM, Massimo Gallo wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we agree on the small number of "component types".
>>> However, if you have a small number of types, you will end up with names
>>> containing many generic components types and few specific components
>>> types. Due to the fact that the component type specification is an
>>> exception in the name, I would prefer something that specify component's
>>> type only when needed (something like UTF8 conventions but that
>>> applications MUST use).
>>> 
>> 
>> so ... I can't quite follow that. the thread has had some explanation about why the UTF8 requirement has problems (with aliasing, e.g.) and there's been email trying to explain that applications don't have to use types if they don't need to. your email sounds like "I prefer the UTF8 convention", but it doesn't say why you have that preference in the face of the points about the problems. can you say why it is that you express a preference for the "convention" with problems ?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest