Re: [dpdk-dev] Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

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