[SR-Dev] library naming

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 12/16/08 15:27, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2008 at 15:02, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> I couldn't get the message with a final decision regarding the library 
>> naming scheme.
>> Andrei used libsr_xyz at some point, I also like this one. Henning 
>> committed directly lib/trie in his branch.
>>     
>
> It looks like most people prefer libsrxyz (without '_'). At least
> everybody agreed with libsrdb1 and libsrdb2.
>   
ok, and for sub-directories in lib/, should use srxyz? I am not sure now 
someone will use these libs for development of other applications 
outside the srouter source tree. Do you have in ser now "*-dev" packaging?

Daniel

>   
>> I will look soon to make the library out of mi, thinking of: libsr_kmi 
>> or libsr_mi, depending or not whether we want to mark the origin.
>>
>> So, two things to decide:
>> - do we stick to libsr_ as prefix to all new libraries included in srouter?
>> - do we want to mark the origin of the library? Short term, might be 
>> good as pattern to know what is required for k version of the module. 
>>     
>
> IMHO we should mark the origin if there are 2 different versions or if
> the lib is transitional (will be obsoleted).
> If there is only one version which we will keep (e.g.  trie) we don't
> need to.
>
> As far as mi is concerned, I hope is one  of the things that will be
> obsoleted in future versions. IMHO is too closely modeled on xmlrpc,
> and is far too complex compared with ser rpcs and more difficult to
> write. It's true it supports structs inside structs, but I don't think
> anybody needs nested structs in a management or rpc interface.
>
>
> Andrei
> P.S.: the vim git:file plugin is great, e.g.: 
>   vim origin/henning/trie:lib/trie/Makefile
>   

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com