Re: [Tracker] Database access abstraction

[Jamie McCracken <jamie mccrack googlemail com>]

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 12:46 +0100, JÃrg Billeter wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 01:11 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:

> > - tracker_data_query_check_service(), I would probably call that
> > tracker_data_query_file_exists(). We have this concept of "service"
> > meaning a file and I really dislike that, but I can understand why we
> > have a generic word to describe data. For this API, it is specific to
> > files so I think it would be fine to use "file" instead of "service".
>
> Can't this function also be used e.g. with emails? Then maybe call the
> function tracker_data_query_service_exists?
>
> I also dislike the confusion between service, service type, and file,
> it's really used inconsistently. I'd just consistently use RDF
> terminology to make it easier to understand, but I don't know how other
> people would feel about a terminology change, Jamie? In RDF terminology,
> we'd have resources (services/entities), classes (service types), and
> properties (metadata fields).

only file specific operations should use the name "file"

generic ones should use service name so i agree with Juerg here

you can rename Service to ServiceClass or ServiceType if you like



jamie