another discussion, for another thread :)
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:35, Christian Haider
> <christian.hai...@smalltalked-visuals.com> wrote:
>
> Namespaces – please.
>
> Best, Christian
>
> Von: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-boun...@lists.pharo.org] Im Auftrag von
> Henrik Nergaard
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2016 14:24
> An: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI
>
> 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
> <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
> <mailto: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
