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

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Declan Doherty
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:29 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Change new libraries to have 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.
>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.
>Konstantin

I agree with Thomas as a Type One like person I would like to change it too, but think Konstantin’s point is very valid and we do not need to change existing APIs. I could live with changing the new libraries only, but then we get into the multiple prefixes problem :-(
> 
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-04-05 09:48, Trahe, Fiona:
>> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
>> > > 2016-04-05 08:53, Fiona Trahe:
>> > > > The cryptodev API was introduced in the DPDK 2.2 release.
>> > > > Since then it has
>> > > >  - been reviewed and iterated for the DPDK 16.04 release
>> > > >  - had extensive use by the l2fwd-crypto app,
>> > > > 			the ipsec-secgw example app,
>> > > > 			the test app.
>> > > > We believe it is now stable and the EXPERIMENTAL label should be removed.
>> > >
>> > > Are you sure sure? :)
>> > > It means you will try hard to not change the API anymore or you'll need a
>> > > deprecation notice strongly agreed (outside of your team).
>> >
>> > We're sure sure :)
>> 
>> I think we could change the namespace before making this API stable.
>> What about using a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_ ?
>> (and some macros have CRYPTODEV or CDEV prefixes)
>> 
>
>


Regards,
Keith