Question: would "#define vigil nox" produce enough backwards compatibility to solve the problem? Intuitively it would...
- Rob . On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Martin Casado <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, that's a fair point. We have tons of internal code which still uses > the vigil namespace. It is temping to clean up the cruft however. > >> Assuming there is enough code not pushed upstream into NOX out there, >> I am personally against name changes like this. The last time someone >> changed secchan to ofprotocol in OpenFlow, too much work results. >> Unless someone volunteer to update everyone's code to the new >> namespace, I see no reason why such a change should be made. >> >> Regards >> KK >> >> On 21 February 2010 18:15, Martin Casado <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> That would be fantastic. Yes, vigil is purely vestigial. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> IIRC, all of the "namespace vigil" references are historical and >>>> outdated -- is that correct? Is there any reason not to wholesale >>>> replace vigil with 'nox'? >>>> >>>> The current name causes some confusion in the source code. >>>> >>>> I can do the honors if people agree that it's a good idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Rob >>>> . >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nox-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nox-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
