[riot-devel] NSTF - Naming the stack

Kaspar Schleiser kaspar at schleiser.de
Mon May 18 16:08:25 CEST 2015


+1 for "generic", but do we need the abbrevation?

On 05/18/15 15:55, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> concerning the name of the new network stack, and assuming it is not
> going to be the only network stack that RIOT hosts, here's a suggestion.
> 
> The way I see it, the goal of this network stack was/is to be generic [1]:
> - one-size-fits-most
> - flexible/configurable/extendable 
> 
> In contrast, other stacks that RIOT supports (or is about to support)
> have more specific goals, e.g.
> - OpenWSN stack (focus on 802.15.4e and 6TiSCH)
> - Kaspar's IP stack focusing on fitting the memory constraints of Class
> 0 devices
> - CCN-lite stack focusing on NDN and CCN
> 
> So how about we simply name the new network stack "the generic stack"
> and, where needed in the code, we could abbreviate the word "generic" by
> eliding the vowels from the word, which then becomes the acronym/prefix
> "gnrc". 
> 
> Somehow, we can convene that "gnrc" could/can be pronounced almost like
> the original word "generic".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Emmanuel 
> 
> 
> [1] Word definition from Webster dictionary:
> Generic: Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes
> or their characteristics; -- opposed to specific. 
> http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=generic
> 
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Oleg Hahm <oliver.hahm at inria.fr
> <mailto:oliver.hahm at inria.fr>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Ludwig!
> 
>     > Isn't ccn-lite using the lower layer(s) (MAC, LLC, driver - correct me if
>     > I'm wrong) of the old stack and should be upgraded to use the lower layer(s)
>     > of the new stack? (What about OpenWSN?) Or are those layers not considered
>     > part of the stack?
> 
>     Yes, you're right, ccn-lite can run directly on top of Link Layer (and
>     actually more or less any other layer) and should be upgraded.
> 
>     OpenWSN provides a full network stack from Link to Application Layer.
> 
>     > >I think we cannot compare to Linux,
>     > >BSD, and
>     > >the like here. They can afford to make different modules somehow
>     > >interoperable
>     > >at cost of memory, we cannot.
>     >
>     > As far as I remember, the modularization of the new stack had exactly this
>     > as a goal.
> 
>     Yes, that's correct. However, there will - as Kaspar pointed out -
>     still exist
>     other stack implementations. Actually, this might be another reason
>     for a
>     name: if one implements a new module for this stack, one should
>     indicate that
>     it is compatible to stack XYZ.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Oleg
> 
>     --
>     panic("This never returns");
>             linux-2.6.6/kernel/power/swsusp.c
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     devel mailing list
>     devel at riot-os.org <mailto:devel at riot-os.org>
>     https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
> https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 


More information about the devel mailing list