Thanks for commenting and making the debate alive :) 2016-04-05 14:03, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Declan Doherty > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 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
