Hey Kaspar!
+1 for generic, but do we need the abbrevation?
Aren't you usually the one arguing for short variable names and the like?
Cheers,
Oleg
--
WHO HAS ANY ARP JOKES?
pgpGuwdlBaDTu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list
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
+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
Hey,
On 05/18/15 16:17, Oleg Hahm wrote:
+1 for generic, but do we need the abbrevation?
Aren't you usually the one arguing for short variable names and the like?
Yes, but gnrc... ;)
gns (generic network stack), gn, gnet, gen, g, ... ?
Kaspar
___
Hi,
given that I was asked today what the R means in RIOT (and Thomas W.
giving the most excellent to my revelutionary or restricted: RIOT) I
really like gnrc. Let's find some alternative meanings for that! :D
Generic newly retained code? Great networking! RIOT certified? Google
never really
Hi,
I also can live very well with gnrc aka generic.
Cheers,
Hauke
P.S. +1 for 'Google never really called' :-)
On 18.05.2015 17:56, Martine Lenders wrote:
Hi,
given that I was asked today what the R means in RIOT (and Thomas W.
giving the most excellent to my revelutionary or restricted:
Hi,
If it can help brainstorming, non-specific is a synonym for generic e.g
ns_ as non-specific network stack.
2015-05-18 19:44 GMT+02:00 Kaspar Schleiser kas...@schleiser.de:
Hey,
On 05/18/15 16:17, Oleg Hahm wrote:
+1 for generic, but do we need the abbrevation?
Aren't you usually
Hi,
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack would have a name, we could simply call it
NAME_conf...
Cheers,
Oleg
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241
--
panic(Alas, I survived.\n);
Hi,
Martine and me had the same discussion yesterday. Until we have a name,
NG_NETOPT would be the natural choice I guess...
Cheers,
Hauke
On 12.05.2015 09:54, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Hi,
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack
Hey,
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
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
Hey,
On 05/12/2015 09:54 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack would have a name, we could simply call it
NAME_conf...
If nameless sticks, we could just replace all ng_ with nl_ ...
Until we port
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
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
Hi everyone,
giving the ng_stack a name sounds like a very good idea to me (and as
far as I remembered I already mentioned this last summer...). Though
finding a name is tough and I don't like the obvious once (flexnet_,
default_, riotnet_, etc...).
Also 'cutting' out the re-usable parts as
Hi!
giving the ng_stack a name sounds like a very good idea to me (and as far as
I remembered I already mentioned this last summer...). Though finding a name
is tough and I don't like the obvious once (flexnet_, default_, riotnet_,
etc...).
To make it easier, I think we can even discard the
Hi,
I'm not in favor of keeping the prefix. Three reasons:
1. https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/2731#discussion_r27350056
2. I'm really looking forward to the day when I don't need to prepend the
ng_ prefix anymore
3. Angie sounds to me like a political statement ;-)
In all seriousness: I
Hi!
I'm not in favor of keeping the prefix. Three reasons:
Forget about the ng, that's unrelated to the question that we need a name for
the stack.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
printk(NONONONOO\n);
linux-2.6.6/drivers/atm/zatm.c
pgph9eCWJfIRE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Oleg Hahm wrote:
After thinking just for some minutes over a new name for the stack, I thought
that NG (pronounced Angie? ;)) may be not a bad idea after all and would
save us from quite some renaming... All we would have to do then is to extract
Dear roaring IOTlers,
after some discussion with Kaspar yesterday, we came to the conclusion that it
would probably make sense to give a name to the new IPv6 network stack. The
rational (aside from making it easier to refer to it) is that some parts of
its implementation can serve as common
Hi!
What do you think?
Due to its known meaning ng is as bad a name as new or next,
because it will loose this meaning in the foreseeable future.
Star Trek TNG hasn't lost its meaning even after twenty years... But I'm
really not in favor of any particular name.
I'm not sure if naming is
21 matches
Mail list logo
