On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:57 PM > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace > > > > DPDK is going to be more popular in Linux distributions. > > It means people will have some DPDK files in their /usr/include and some > DPDK > > libraries on their system. > > > > Let's imagine someone trying to compile an application which needs > > rte_ethdev.h. He has to figure out that this "rte header" is provided by > the DPDK. > > Hopefully it will be explained on StackOverflow that RTE stands for DPDK. > > Then someone else will try to run a binary without having installed the > DPDK > > libraries. The linker will require libethdev.so (no prefix here). > > StackOverflow will probably have another good answer (among wrong ones): > > "Hey Sherlock Holmes, have you tried to install the DPDK library?" > > Followed by an insight: "You know, the DPDK naming is weird..." > > And we could continue the story with developers having some naming clash > > because of some identifiers not prefixed at all. > > > > The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is to > fix the > > DPDK namespace. > > > > If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to > > introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_" > > during some time. > > We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto) > or when > > there is a significant API break (example: mempool). > > > > Opinions welcome! > I don't have an opinion on how important it is to fix the namespace, > though it does seem like a good idea. > However if it's to be done, in my opinion it should be completed quickly > or will just cause more confusion. > So if rte_cryptoxxx becomes dpdk_cryptoxxx all other libraries should > follow in next release or two, with > the resulting ABI compatibility handling. Maybe with dual naming handled > for several releases, but a > clear end date when all are converted. > Else there will be many years with a mix of rte_ and dpdk_ > > Googling rte functions or error codes usually takes you to dpdk dev email archive so I don't think it is that much difficult to figure out where rte comes from. Other than that , except for my own refactoring pains when replacing a dpdk version, I do not see a major reason why not. If Going for dpdk_ prefix, I agree with the quick death approach. /Arnon