Naming for plugins/scheme implementations.

[setrofim]

Currently, scheme and plugin names have been created on ad-hoc basis. However, as these names are a part of the overall "interface" exposed by Veraison, we should cosider naming more carefully. A naming scheme should be devised and documented; we should also modify existing code base to adhere to the scheme.

The naming scheme should consider:

• Avoiding collisions between differnt plugin creators (e.g. prefix sheme with a vendor name , e.g. veraison/psa to distinguish from other PSA-based scheme plugins).
• Consistent use of suffixes and prefixes, and separators thereof, in the names to indicate different aspects of the schemes, such as the technology used (e.g. TPM).

[setrofim]

This is part of a larger goal of nailing down our plugins interface. See also: #120

[thomas-fossati]

This is part of a larger goal of nailing down our plugins interface. See also: #120

Just to clarify: are you saying that the naming scheme should include versioning as well (e.g., veraison/psa/v1.0.0)?

[setrofim]

Just to clarify: are you saying that the naming scheme should include versioning as well (e.g., veraison/psa/v1.0.0)?

Possibly but not necessarily. I'm just indicating that both the naming and the versioning of plugins are part of their "inteface", and we need resolves both of them as part of defining that. Whether or not versioning should be part of the name is an open question (I can see arguments both for and against).