[sugar] Studly caps

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 02:36 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> Robert McQueen wrote:
> > Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> the presence service is now using studly caps in package names and in
> >> signal names. We should really have a convention about this...
> >>     
> >
> > The convention on D-Bus is to use StudlyCaps (including Single words)
> > for methods, signals, interfaces names and object paths (except for the
> > parts which are derived from domain components). It's usually mapped by
> > the bindings to the convention of your local language, so in Glib:
> >  BarSignal -> BAR_SIGNAL (the constant) / bar-signal (the string)
> >  FooInterface.BazMethod -> foo_interface_baz_method
> >
> > The point of this is that provided the D-Bus interfaces have a
> > consistent capitalisation, it's easy to map to the conventions of other
> > languages. If you try and put eg glib conventions into your D-Bus API,
> > it will come out as very ugly in other language bindings, so I'd
> > recommend against it.
> >
> >   
> >> I don't have such a strong feeling about the specific convention... but
> >> we should really make our conventions clear and use them consistently.
> >>     
> >
> > In D-Bus, use the D-Bus conventions, which will map to the glib
> > conventions in those bindings, and the correct conventions elsewhere.
> >
> >   
> 
> D-Bus convention for the presence D-Bus service and glib conventions for 
> the tiny gobject based wrapper sounds like a sensible approach to me.

Ok; however I thought for consistency in the python PS bindings that I
should use StudlyCaps just to be the same as the underlying D-Bus API.
That can be trivially changed, however.  I don't really care.

Dan