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. -- - Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

On 11 Nov 2016, at 06:50, Neels Hofmeyr <nhofmeyr@sysmocom.de> wrote:

Hi all,

for a bit of bikeshed fun on the side, I'd like to ask your opinions on a good name.

The background: we're in the process of separating libmsc from libbsc. Both use the structs gsm_network and gsm_subscriber_connection, and both of these structs contain elements that are used only by libbsc or only by libmsc, besides the elements that are used by both. So at some point I will "split" both of these in two, to have a BSC and an MSC version thereof.

How should we name them?

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).

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

--> osmo_bsc_subscr_conn / osmo_msc_subscr_conn almost the old length.

Happy shedding, "+1" comments and/or opinions welcome

http://wiki.freeradius.org/contributing/coding-standards Seems pretty similar to what we do. Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS Development Team FD31 3077 42EC 7FCD 32FE 5EE2 56CF 27F9 30A8 CAA2