1048776 - Follow up to bug 1036228 - Using mozilla::dom instead of mozilla::dom::bluetooth namespace

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Bluetooth, defect)

Description

[Jocelyn Liu [:jocelyn] [:joliu]]

As Boris pointed out in Bug 1036228 Comment20, it is redundant to use bluetooth namespace since we already have Bluetooth prefix for all bluetooth classes.

Comment 1

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the namespace, but remove the prefixes?

Comment 2

[Shawn Huang [:shawnjohnjr][:shuang] (as a happy gecko contributor)]

(In reply to Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz] from comment #1)
> Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the namespace, but remove the prefixes?

Agree with Thomas, namespace is better.

Comment 3

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

I mean, I don't have a strong preference. :) How do other components handle this?

Comment 4

[Jocelyn Liu [:jocelyn] [:joliu]]

My opinion is that wouldn't it confuse people if we remove the prefix for dom/webidl files?
Most of the webidl files and interface names under dom/webidl are easier to find out what component is related.

Comment 5

[Shawn Huang [:shawnjohnjr][:shuang] (as a happy gecko contributor)]

(In reply to Shawn Huang [:shuang] [:shawnjohnjr] from comment #2)
> (In reply to Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz] from comment #1)
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the namespace, but remove the prefixes?
> 
> Agree with Thomas, namespace is better.

Ah, removing prefix might change too many efforts and so many files will be renamed. But my consideration is that the upcoming W3C bluetooth proposal does not have Bluetooth prefix name from Chroimum. This is why I think keeping namespace and remove bluetooth prefix is better.

Comment 6

[BMO Automation]

Firefox OS is not being worked on