Re: [Tracker] Database access abstraction

[Martyn Russell <martyn imendio com>]

Jamie McCracken wrote:
> 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"

I agree.

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

Yep.

> you can rename Service to ServiceClass or ServiceType if you like

I would rather use something completely different. Like Resource and
Service. Otherwise you end up with these even longer APIs where you have
to have tracker_foo_get_service_class_by_service_type() which isn't as
obvious to me as tracker_foo_get_service_by_resource().

-- 
Regards,
Martyn