Hi Neels,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:50:01PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
struct gsm_network (note, if there is a common part, that could still be named 'gsm_network')
--> bsc_network / msc_network looks familiar but the meaning of the name is lost
--> gsm_bsc / gsm_msc
--> osmo_bsc / osmo_msc To me these would be the best and the names are still available, but there are header files named like this and the osmo-bsc binary also has a very similar name. I think I would go for these anyway. +1
--> osmo_gsm_bsc / osmo_gsm_msc As alternative, but the gsm is a bit out of place (particularly in the light of a UMTS MSC).
In general we shouldn't call structures how we are (or might be) calling functional elements. So if it's a msc or bsc instance or context, postfix it by _inst, _instance, _ctx or _context.
Also, the osmo_ naming prefix makex mostly sense in the conext of library code to avoid namespace pollution. I think I actually like it if application code structures and symbols do not have osmo_ prefixes.
struct gsm_subscriber_connection
--> bsc_subscriber_connection / msc_subscriber_connection but we could use the opportunity to shorten the name
--> bsc_subscr_conn / msc_subscr_conn I like these best; but add osmo? +1
fine with me.