+1 for "generic", but do we need the abbrevation?
On 05/18/15 15:55, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hi everyone, > > concerning the name of the new network stack, and assuming it is not > going to be the only network stack that RIOT hosts, here's a suggestion. > > The way I see it, the goal of this network stack was/is to be generic [1]: > - one-size-fits-most > - flexible/configurable/extendable > > In contrast, other stacks that RIOT supports (or is about to support) > have more specific goals, e.g. > - OpenWSN stack (focus on 802.15.4e and 6TiSCH) > - Kaspar's IP stack focusing on fitting the memory constraints of Class > 0 devices > - CCN-lite stack focusing on NDN and CCN > > So how about we simply name the new network stack "the generic stack" > and, where needed in the code, we could abbreviate the word "generic" by > eliding the vowels from the word, which then becomes the acronym/prefix > "gnrc". > > Somehow, we can convene that "gnrc" could/can be pronounced almost like > the original word "generic". > > Cheers, > > Emmanuel > > > [1] Word definition from Webster dictionary: > Generic: Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes > or their characteristics; -- opposed to specific. > http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=generic > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Oleg Hahm <oliver.h...@inria.fr > <mailto:oliver.h...@inria.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Ludwig! > > > 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? > > Yes, you're right, ccn-lite can run directly on top of Link Layer (and > actually more or less any other layer) and should be upgraded. > > OpenWSN provides a full network stack from Link to Application Layer. > > > >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. > > Yes, that's correct. However, there will - as Kaspar pointed out - > still exist > other stack implementations. Actually, this might be another reason > for a > name: if one implements a new module for this stack, one should > indicate that > it is compatible to stack XYZ. > > Cheers, > Oleg > > -- > panic("This never returns"); > linux-2.6.6/kernel/power/swsusp.c > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
