> On Dec 2, 2014, at 00:37 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2014, at 11:58 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > >> The same functionality can be trivially achieved at the user level using >> Adam's approach. If we provide a shortcut in Open MPI, we should emphasize >> this is an MPI extension, and offer the opportunity to other MPI to provide >> a compatible support > > Are you referring to something Adam Moody proposed? Or some other Adam?
He did more than proposing, he provided a link to the implementation in SCR. So yes, I was indeed referring to Adam Moody. >> Thus, I would name all new types MPIX_ instead of OMPI_ and remove them from >> the default mpi.h (or "include mpi") to force the users to use mpiext.h and >> "include mpiext" in order to be able to access them. > > FWIW, we’ve traditionally named Open MPI-specific extensions "OMPI_" instead > of "MPIX_" (which can be confused with other MPI implementation extensions). Indeed, it was a choice we made long ago. Thinking about this retroactively it was a bad choice. We (UTK) maintain some of the extensions, and as other MPI libraries start providing similar extensions (while they are discussed in the MPI Forum), users start asking for a common naming scheme in order to simplify their life. Other than a preferential reason, what other competing reason do we have to stick with OMPI_ instead of MPIX_? George. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2014/12/25893.php
