Hi, Am 12. Mai 2015 20:26:58 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm <oliver.h...@inria.fr>: >Hi! > >> what about `ipc_stack` due to its utilization of the former? But >still: I'm >> still not convinced of the reason to give it a name. All operating >systems >> have a default stack but no one is bound to use it and can use their >> `ultra` stack etc. (in Linux e.g. as a library). The naming of uIP is >> mainly historic, since it started out as a seperate project. As far >as I >> know TinyOS' stack has no name either. > >Contiki has uIP and RIME, TinyOS has BLIP if I remember correctly. We >have >ccn-lite, OpenWSN, and this one.
Isn't ccn-lite using the lower layer(s) (MAC, LLC, driver - correct me if I'm wrong) of the old stack and should be upgraded to use the lower layer(s) of the new stack? (What about OpenWSN?) Or are those layers not considered part of the stack? >I think we cannot compare to Linux, >BSD, and >the like here. They can afford to make different modules somehow >interoperable >at cost of memory, we cannot. As far as I remember, the modularization of the new stack had exactly this as a goal. Cheers, Ludwig _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
