Naming convention for iceoryx binaries

[orecham]

Brief feature description

Iceoryx exports multiple binaries. Should there be a naming convention for them ? If yes, what should this be ?

[orecham]

Currently, we have the following binaries:

• gateway_dds2iceoryx
• gateway_iceoryx2dds
• iceoryx_introspection_client
• iceperf-hardy
• iceperf-laurel
• ice-publisher-bare-metal
• ice-publisher-simple
• ice-subscriber-bare-metal
• ice-subscriber-simple
• RouDi

Suggestion: streamline naming to follow the following convention: iox-${application_name}

[elBoberido]

so we would have something like

• iox-roudi
• iox-gw-dds2iceoryx
• iox-gw-iceoryx2dds
• etc.

I like that.
I'm not sure if we should also do it for our examples or just for binaries we would distribute in a release

[orecham]

I would vote to use it for all of them for consistency... I like the idea of being able to just type in my terminal: iox- <tab> <tab> and easily see the list of iceoryx applications.

I am not too fussed though, if there is a strong want/need to break the convention for examples then we can leave them as is.

[elBoberido]

I also don't have strong feelings about this. We should maybe use something like an iox-ex- prefix.
@MatthiasKillat, what's your opinion regarding a prefix for examples? I know we had a discussion in the past regarding something similar.