Re: [lwip-devel] Extended udp_recv callback

[Jakob Stoklund Olesen]

Kieran Mansley wrote:
> Yes.  I'm keen that anything we do at the raw API layer though be
> mindful of what the layers above might need.

I agree.

[...]

> Looks fine to me.
> 
> Couple of style points:
>  - let's try and keep our naming consistent.  At the moment we have
> udp_recv() to set the recv callback (note no "callback" in that function
> name), so try to add something that logically follows from that.

I gathered from Jonathan's comments that he prefers more verbose API
functions. I have also been confused buy the meaning of udp_recv and
tcp_accept myself.

However, consistency is good.

How about udp_ext_recv() ?

typedef udp_recv_callback_t
typedef udp_ext_recv_callback_t

>  - I'm not a big fan of using "raw" again: it has lots of other meanings
> already (raw API, raw socket, etc) and so having another use will only
> confuse things.

Alright. s/RAW/EXT/ ?


/stoklund