If the prefix is renamed would it be possible to include a delimiter symbol between whatever prefix name and the object name? (for example underscore). Then one could change the how a class is viewed in a simple manner (see attached example).
Best regards, Henrik From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-boun...@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Esteban Lorenzano Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:33 AM To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI 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) 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
