Return-Path: Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] D-Bus interfaces From: Philip Blundell To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Fred Sch??ttgen , BlueZ Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1077063432.2665.165.camel@pegasus> References: <1076265358.2670.36.camel@pegasus> <1076278554.14742.112.camel@akka.yeti.nocrew.org> <1076279508.6869.54.camel@pegasus> <200402090015.24318.bluez-devel@schaettgen.de> <20040216144615.GA318@nexus.co.uk> <1076945776.17824.6.camel@merlin> <20040216154155.GB32285@nexus.co.uk> <1077058771.2665.134.camel@pegasus> <1077061102.685.0.camel@dixie.nexus.co.uk> <1077061494.2665.148.camel@pegasus> <1077061750.685.3.camel@dixie.nexus.co.uk> <1077062239.2665.153.camel@pegasus> <1077062886.685.8.camel@dixie.nexus.co.uk> <1077063432.2665.165.camel@pegasus> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1077064144.685.16.camel@dixie.nexus.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:29:04 +0000 List-ID: On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 00:17, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > Right, but BlueZ is the group defining the interface. Linux and FreeBSD > > are not the only Bluetooth vendors, so I don't think it is appropriate > > to use the bluetooth.org namespace. > > for me this is only a name and the technology behind it is Bluetooth, so > I prefer to use org.bluetooth. That's it. I agree that it's just a name, but I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for us to use the Bluetooth name just because that's the underlying technology. The reason for having the domain identifier is to ensure unique naming, not to indicate the provenance of the interface. Any other group that wanted to invent D-BUS bindings for Bluetooth would be just as entitled as us to use the "org.bluetooth" namespace. Not that I think this is especially likely to happen, but it still seems like bad form to usurp those identifiers. > I don't know, but I like to have a pseudo standard interface that can be > used across free unix operating systems. We can still have that within the org.bluez namespace. p.