28 Mar
2011
28 Mar
'11
8 p.m.
Hi Pablo,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:27:42PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
no, I don't have such plans, and I don't think it is neccessarry. The
signalling system is not intended to have multiple instances. There is
one in every process, that's it.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Some minor questions:
On 27/03/11 22:20, Harald Welte wrote:
both fine with me. I think Sylvain wanted to be a bit less 'aggressive'
with renaming, but the point is: We're breaking the API anyway, so we
might as well do it properly once and hopefully not have to care about
it in the future.
Exceptions:
* libosmovty should have a common vty_ prefix, but not osmo.
* for libosmovty we should probably simply limit the number of exported
symbols. There is e.g. all the buffer_*() and vector_*() use internally,
but there is no need to globally export all those symbols.
* no osmo_ prefix for msgb_* and tlv_*, as they are used everywhere
* no prefix for talloc
* bitvec_* -> osmo_bv_*
enum bit_value -> enum osmo_bit_value
struct bitvec -> struct osmo_bitvec there are some inconsistencies in the API naming in
the timer bits:
bsc_add_timer(...)
bsc_timer_pending(...)
I can put the timer postfix in the end, so it looks consistent.
I think it should all be called osmo_timer_* for consistency.
struct timer_list should be struct osmo_timer_list,
right?
ACK.
* *_signal_*
-> osmo_signal_*
Is there any plan to remove the static lists inside the library?