Closed gregmedd closed 4 months ago
Hmm... what about other language implementations that define uP-L2 interfaces and allow for defining custom implementations for a particular transport? Would those repos still be up-client
? Would they be up-transport
unless and until they had a custom implementation of a uP-L2 API?
@stevenhartley might have more thoughts on this.
I also said a while back that e.g. the transport implementation of vsomeip should probably be called up-transport-vsomeip-foo, since there will never be any uP-L2 stuff defined for it.
@PLeVasseur - Apologies for missing your question.
I think it is fine if other languages define their L2 APIs in a different way. In the C++ implementation, we are using up-cpp as the generic interface to uProtocol, with the various transport implementations only needing to provide their respective L1 capabilities. Given that, it makes sense for us to rename our repos.
And on the topic of renaming the repos, it looks like @stevenhartley already did that for us. Thanks!
The "client" now lives in
up-cpp
. This repo will only contain a transport implementation. It should be renamed to reflect that and avoid confusion.