DDS — Changing the IDL module

The module names in the IDL are very terse and not prefixed. In
this form they pose a high risk of a name collision with any other,
even user-written, IDL module. I would suggest to prefix the module
names as explained in the IDL Style Guide (ab/98-06-03). The "Cos"
prefix would be adequate. This means to change for example
"module DDS" to "module CosDDS", or even to a more intuitive
"module CosDataDistributionService" for the benefit of the user.
I think non of today's systems has a severe name limitation
anymore.

Further email narrowed the proposal to "CosDDS".

Proposed action: No Change

Both RTI and THALES feel that the change significantly affect users that
have started developing applications using the API. Our companies have
invested significantly in the API and a change this late would make us
lose a lot of credibility and may really upset some customers. In the
case of RTI this includes documentation that has been in-use by
customers over the last 6 months.

In our respective markets there is a lot of people using C and C++ with
compilers that don't support name-spaces so this change affects a very
visible part of the API, namely the prefix of every function. The change
may appear small but it may actually have big impact if we consider
user-acceptance.

Furthermore, the use of the "Cos" prefix may be misleading as the
Data-Distribution Service was designed so it would be implementable
without an object service.

closed no change