Re: nft parser and names for constants (was [PATCH v2] parser: add kludges for "param-problem" and "redirect")

[Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>]

Am 09.04.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
> On 09.04, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 09.04.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
>>>> 3. I don't see why admins have to use another set of names for constants
>>>> than developers. Inventing a new set of names for a list of constants for
>>>> which there already exist a very widely used set of names just leads to more
>>>> confusion. And if it's ok to invent new names, why does nft use
>>>> "param-problem" and not "parameter-problem"? Of course, I would suggest to
>>>> use the existing name icmp_parameterprob (like it's used in every
>>>> c/c++-source).
>>>
>>> In case of ICMP we use the same names that iptables used, so this actually
>>> spares admins from getting used to new constants. We're not going to use
>>> source code identifiers, there's no benefit at all, especially if you
>>> consider that Linux headers use different identifiers than the BSD headers.
>>
>> nft isn't in use on BSD and if you think taking BSD out of a corner makes
>> sense, I wonder how compatible the names, nft uses, are, with what is used
>> by ipf or one of the other BSD firewall packages. As the answer is the names
>> are incompatible, arguing with BSD is nonsense here.
>
> This is starting to annoy me. If you suggest to use names from headers, at
> least do your homework. The BSD headers is what most of userspace uses, and
> this is where ICMP_PARAMPROB originates. Linux uses ICMP_PARAMETERPROB.

I aggree that this discussion, which never really has begun, finally 
ended in the mud. Feel free to throw out more accusations as I won't try 
to discuss with you anymore.