[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

Junxiao Shi shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu
Tue Sep 16 08:47:50 PDT 2014

Hi Jeff

Please see my proposal of MarkedComponent <
which is a solution to eliminate ambiguity by defining a new type
specifically for key-value pair.

Yours, Junxiao

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Burke, Jeff <jburke at remap.ucla.edu> wrote:

> Second, if the most important issue is eliminating ambiguity/aliasing,
> then why not define a new type that hints that the component can be
> interpreted as a key/value pair with some encoding convention?  This could
> enable an unambiguous, short list of commonly used conventions that you've
> mentioned (using marker-like keys),  while keeping information describing
> the data object in the name. It would also be very useful for applications
> that desire their own k/v representation for components, which Dave has
> argued for in other circumstances and we keep running across. It doesn't
> rule out use of hierarchy, and doesn't limit what an application defined
> keys could be.  Yet, it could be ignored in forwarding (just another
> component) and perhaps have a still-meaningful sort order (key, then
> value).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20140916/3dba720f/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list