As long as people do not use vigil as a variable. I believe there is more useful things to do with NOX than change the namespace. Are we putting the cart before the horse here?
Regards KK On 21 February 2010 23:28, Rob Sherwood <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 outdated -- is that correct?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
