> On 13 Jan 2016, at 12:56, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:32, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com >> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> So, recapitulation: >> >> I want to introduce: >> >> 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI >> 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they >> will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problem…) >> 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didn’t talk about >> this, but I’m introducing it because is better name :P) > > But isn’t the answered object a string? Then I would vote for > #ffiLibraryName. Otherwise I’d expect a “Library” object.
no, it will answer a string or a children of FFILibrary (for instance LibC), that’s how we deal with different platforms (like libc.so.6, libc.dylib, etc.) Originally it was like you said, but it changed… I just forget to refactor it. Esteban > >> >> I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. >> >> opinions? >> >> Esteban >> >>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com >>>> <mailto:b...@openinworld.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. >>>>> And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. >>>>> It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world >>>>> And it has some relation to Alien name. >>>>> But maybe it is too much funny name >>>> >>>> I guess we are considering... >>>> >>>> Prefix: UFO (shorter) >>>> Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) >>>> >>>> Prefix: UFFI (longer) >>>> Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) >>>> >>>> I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The >>>> shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). >>>> But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external >>>> blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. >>>> I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several >>>> implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of >>>> divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to >>>> collaborate there. >>>> So in the end I think I prefer Unified. >>> >>> yes, I suppose you are right. >>> but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just >>> repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P >>> >>> now… probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better >>> for understanding in the long way). >>> >>>> >>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than >>>> UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but >>>> UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if >>>> its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend >>>> for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that >>>> super-performance is required only on supported platforms? >>> >>> actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be >>> more or less compatible… it was at the beginning, then I made some changes… >>> what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use >>> executable memory. >>> >>> Also… yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you >>> cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and >>> optimised code… so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist >>> anymore. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI >>>>>> front-end is misleading. >>>>>> So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, >>>>>> for >>>>>> short) is a better name… and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was >>>>>> thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unified… but maybe is better >>>>>> just >>>>>> to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFI… >>>>>> what do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Esteban >> >
