From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of
	rte_
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 16:22:30 +0200
Message-ID: <1821216.RRtMHy1jzs@xps13>
References: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13> <5703BDB3.3010501@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B2E5A6@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8415A2BFD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  5 Apr 2016 16:24:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id f198so34495396wme.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B2E5A6@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Thanks for commenting and making the debate alive :)

2016-04-05 14:03, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Declan Doherty
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > I think we could change the namespace before making this API stable.
> > > What about using a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_ ?
> > 
> > I'd like people opinion of Thomas proposal to have all new libraries use
> > a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_*. Although I agree that dpdk_ would
> > probably make sense, I don't like the ascetics of inconsistent prefixes
> > on dpdk libraries. Any comments?
> 
> I suppose it is a bit strange to have rte_ prefix for one set of libraries,
> and dpdk_ prefix for others.

Don't you think it is strange to have a prefix not related with
the public project name?
Is it strange to have some functions without any prefix at all?
(examples in rte_ether.h)

> If we'd decide to change the prefix, then my vote would be to do
> that for all dpdk libraries at once.
> BTW, why do we need to change it at all?
> 'rte_' is probably not the best one, but at least it is well known/used.

Well known, really? The question is how large is the audience we target.
Please see my other email: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-April/037048.html