Doesn't namespacing obviate the need for this convoluted identifier scheme?
See, for example, UML package import and include behaviors.
From: devel [mailto:devel-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Goodell
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:35 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: [OMPI devel] mca_PROJECT_FRAMEWORK_COMPONENT_symbol vs.
Jeff and I were talking about some namespacing issues that have come up in
the recent BTL move from OMPI to OPAL. AFAIK, the current system for
namespacing external symbols is to name them
"mca_FRAMEWORK_COMPONENT_symbol" (e.g., "mca_btl_tcp_add_procs" in the tcp
BTL). Similarly, the DSO for the component is named
"mca_FRAMEWORK_COMPONENT.so" (e.g., "mca_btl_tcp.so").
Jeff asserted that the eventual goal is to move to a system where all MCA
frameworks/components are also prefixed by the project name. So the above
examples become "mca_ompi_btl_tcp_add_procs" and "mca_ompi_btl_tcp.so".
Does anyone actually care about pursuing this goal?
I ask because if nobody wants to pursue the goal of adding project names to
namespaces then I already have an easy solution to most of our namespacing
problems. OTOH, if someone does wish to pursue that goal, then I have a
namespace-related RFC that I would like to propose (in a subsequent email).
devel mailing list
Link to this post:
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7949 - Release Date: 07/30/14