[mpas-developers] Proposed change on module names

[Michael Duda]

Hi, Doug.

I'd certainly agree that adding the prefix 'mpas' to modules would be a
good idea -- both to the module and file name -- especially as we begin to
use the MPAS cores outside of the MPAS framework. On the topic of ensuring
there are no namespace collisions between MPAS and other codes, perhaps we
should also consider namespace collisions between different cores within
MPAS itself; it seems at least within the realm of possibility that we'd
like to couple the MPAS ocean and atmosphere cores with our own coupler at
some point, in which case, we'd need to have distinct names for all modules
in both cores. Should we consider adding some unique prefix to modules that
are specific to one core, e.g., module_mpas_ocn_core and module_mpas_atm_nh_core?

When it comes to the 'module_' prefix on file names, I'm not strongly
opposed to removing this prefix; however, unless filenames become too long,
I think retaining it doesn't cause undue burden. While our MPAS source
files almost universally contain modules at present, I think it's a nice
feature of a code to be able to tell which files contain modules and which
don't just from a directory listing: I like that module_mpas_timekeeping.F
contains the mpas_timekeeping module. Then again, I can't say that I've
ever create a file named class_Foo.cxx in C++ for a class named Foo! 
The 'module_' prefix probably originated from my personal preference (shaped 
by WRF, no doubt), so I'd ultimately have no problem with removing the prefix
if others have a distinct preference for doing so (and especially if we
would end up with long filenames like module_mpas_ocn_time_integration.F).

Cheers,
Michael


On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:40PM -0600, Doug Jacobsen wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> While I am working on making the ocean core's module_time_integration.F more
> modular another proposed change has come up that I wanted to get some
> feedback from other developers on. We have discussed the naming of modules,
> and come up with a proposal to change module names from having the prefix
> module_ to having the prefix mpas_. There are two motivations to this
> change, the first being that module_ doesn't really add any new information
> since we already know that each file contains a module. The second
> motivation is that the switch to mpas_ help reduce the potential of
> namespace conflicts, since it doesn't make sense for other model to have the
> mpas_ prefix.
> 
> I am bringing this proposal to all of the developers because it is a change
> that we might want to have made across all mpas cores, and some people might
> have comments or concerns on this change. So, please let me know if anyone
> has any opinions on the issue.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Doug

> _______________________________________________
> mpas-developers mailing list
> mpas-developers at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpas-developers