[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?
Mark Stapp
mjs at cisco.com
Tue Sep 16 11:33:04 PDT 2014
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
More information about the Ndn-interest
mailing list