Bug 120

Summary:	PacketSink should be named PacketSinkApplication
Product:	ns-3	Reporter:	Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage>
Component:	core	Assignee:	ns-bugs <ns-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3
Version:	pre-release
Hardware:	All
OS:	All

Description Mathieu Lacage 2007-12-11 08:32:58 UTC

Comment 1 Tom Henderson 2007-12-12 02:15:53 UTC

I do not care strongly about this particular one but are you suggesting that all apps be suffixed with "Application"?  (such as UdpEchoServerApplication)

Comment 2 Mathieu Lacage 2007-12-12 02:18:36 UTC

Given our past naming history patterns, I think that this would make sense, yes. All the MobilityModel subclasses use the MobilityModel postfix for example but all NetDevice subclasses do this too. etc.

Comment 3 Mathieu Lacage 2008-04-15 11:49:03 UTC

I don't care much about this so, I would like to propose to settle with the current code. I will close the bug as WONTFIX tomorrow if I don't get feedback.

Comment 4 Tom Henderson 2008-04-17 09:10:02 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't care much about this so, I would like to propose to settle with the
> current code. I will close the bug as WONTFIX tomorrow if I don't get feedback.
> 

I also do not care strongly which is why I haven't rushed to patch it.  It seemed to me that class names could get long by doing this, and that Application is understood from the context if good class names are chosen, but I understand that we have this convention elsewhere such as NetDevice.  Maybe a litmus test is whether the class name makes sense without the suffix (e.g., "PacketSink" could stand alone, but "OnOff" probably does not).

WONTFIX is fine with me.