: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:04 AM
To: 'Open MPI Developers'
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] mca_PROJECT_FRAMEWORK_COMPONENT_symbol vs.
mca_FRAMEWORK_COMPONENT_symbol
Doesn't namespacing obviate the need for this convoluted identifier scheme?
See, for example, UML package import and include behaviors
Doesn't namespacing obviate the need for this convoluted identifier scheme?
See, for example, UML package import and include behaviors.
-Original Message-
From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Dave Goodell
(dgoodell)
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:35 PM
To: Open
I can also picture an environment where different projects can supply
component that would technically belong to a framework from another
project. Let me take an example. Imagine we decide to keep the RML-based
connection setup for SM, thing that is not currently possible in the OPAL
layer. In
We've run into the same problem with frameworks in different projects having
overlapping names, let alone symbols. So if you have an easy solution, please
go for it. What we need is for not only the symbols, but the mca libs to
contain the project names so they don't overlap each other.
On
