Bug 2246

Let me explain the problem and why I do agree with Mohit (we discussed about this).

Classes are "protected" by namespaces, while LogComponent space is not.
If one duplicates the DSR module (namely, to do some experiments with a modified DSR), he/she can automatically change all the "dsr" strings (with some care about capitalizations) and have a fresh copy to work with.
This works for everything BUT for the LogComponents. Unless there's "Dsr" in the name.

AODV, DSDV and OLSR already follow this (even though I don't think it was intentional).
DSR almost follows the convention, with the only exception of PassiveBuffer.

As a side note, I'd rather change the class name as well to, e.g., DsrPassiveBuffer, just because almost all the other Dsr-related classes are starting with Dsr.

(In reply to Tommaso Pecorella from comment #1)
> Let me explain the problem and why I do agree with Mohit (we discussed about
> this).
> 
> Classes are "protected" by namespaces, while LogComponent space is not.
> If one duplicates the DSR module (namely, to do some experiments with a
> modified DSR), he/she can automatically change all the "dsr" strings (with
> some care about capitalizations) and have a fresh copy to work with.
> This works for everything BUT for the LogComponents. Unless there's "Dsr" in
> the name.
> 
> AODV, DSDV and OLSR already follow this (even though I don't think it was
> intentional).
> DSR almost follows the convention, with the only exception of PassiveBuffer.
> 
> As a side note, I'd rather change the class name as well to, e.g.,
> DsrPassiveBuffer, just because almost all the other Dsr-related classes are
> starting with Dsr.


I agree with both the proposed logging changes and the class name adjustment.

(In reply to Tom Henderson from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tommaso Pecorella from comment #1)
> > Let me explain the problem and why I do agree with Mohit (we discussed about
> > this).
> > 
> > Classes are "protected" by namespaces, while LogComponent space is not.
> > If one duplicates the DSR module (namely, to do some experiments with a
> > modified DSR), he/she can automatically change all the "dsr" strings (with
> > some care about capitalizations) and have a fresh copy to work with.
> > This works for everything BUT for the LogComponents. Unless there's "Dsr" in
> > the name.
> > 
> > AODV, DSDV and OLSR already follow this (even though I don't think it was
> > intentional).
> > DSR almost follows the convention, with the only exception of PassiveBuffer.
> > 
> > As a side note, I'd rather change the class name as well to, e.g.,
> > DsrPassiveBuffer, just because almost all the other Dsr-related classes are
> > starting with Dsr.
> 
> 
> I agree with both the proposed logging changes and the class name adjustment.

Mohit wrote me that he's working on a revised patch. As soon as it's ready I'll check it, I'll rebuild the python bindings and I'll push.

Created attachment 2213 [details]
Patch to resolve LogComponent names and Class names in DSR

I have attached a revised patch. This takes care of Log Component names and Class names in DSR.

changeset:   11793:d05cb298c103