Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace

[Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:57 PM
> > To: dev@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