[hipl-dev] Re: [Merge] lp:~stefan.goetz/hipl/hidb-lsidb into lp:hipl
- From: Christof Mroz <christof.mroz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: mp+61833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:25:54 -0000
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:16:25 +0200, Stefan Götz
<stefan.goetz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hm. I'd prefer a consistent rule for the complete code base because
> code tends to move between daemons and the library. Personally, I
> don't think that name clashes between HIPL code and other code will
> ever be a big problem which is why I'm not a big fan of hip_ (which
> should be hipl_, anyway) but then that's just my gut feeling. But this
> is nothing too important - I'm fine with any rule, including the one
> you suggest above.
I ran into this issue when working on midauth in the firewall:
There's code speicific to hipd, specific to hipfw and also shared between
those (in modules/). Applying the least amount of creativity possible,
this resulted in names like (don't remember exactly)
hipfw_check_challenge_response(...) and hip_check_challenge_response(...),
for example, the former calling the latter.
Without prefixes, I could have come up with
"process_challenge_response(...)" or similar purely to avoid a name clash
of course, but I'd have to remember which verb belongs to hipfw or hipd
then every time.
Another example: main(argc,argv) parsing parameters and delegating control
to hipd_main() (or hipfw_main()), rather than "run_daemon()" or something.
That's just an annoyance of course (and you could argue that adding a
prefix every time is even more annoying). And this applies to cross-module
functions only... prefixes pose no benefit to static functions IMHO.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~stefan.goetz/hipl/hidb-lsidb/+merge/61833
Your team HIPL core team is subscribed to branch lp:hipl.
Other related posts:
