Re: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd?

Gary Jennejohn wrote:On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:00:33 +0200 (CEST)
>Ronald Klop <ronald-lists_at_klop.ws> wrote:
>>  Van: Rick Macklem <rmacklem_at_uoguelph.ca>
>> Datum: dinsdag, 1 september 2020 04:37
>> Aan: "freebsd-current_at_FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current_at_FreeBSD.org>
>> Onderwerp: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd?
>> >
>> > This sounds trivial, but I thought I'd ask, in case anyone
>> > has a preference?
>> >
>> > The NFS over TLS code includes two daemons, one for
>> > the client and one for the server.
>> > I have called them rpctlscd and rpctlssd.
>> >
>> > There was/is a tradition in Sun RPC of putting a "." in
>> > the names.
>> > So, should I be calling these daemons:
>> > rpc.tlscd and rpc.tlssd?
>>
>> I don't have an opinion about the rpc* vs rpc.* tradition.
>> But what I do not understand is why the difference between 2 daemons
>> is only reflected in 1 character of their names.  The rest of the
>> name is actually not really significant in keeping them apart.
>>
>
>I had the same reaction.  Maybe something like rpc.tlsclntd and rpc.tlsservd?
Good point. Ben Kaduk thought the second "s" was a typo.

So, unless I hear comments to the contrary, rpc.tlsclntd and rpc.tlsservd it is.

Thanks everyone for your comments, rick
ps: Using a single letter was the old tradition of "shorter is better".
ls, cp, mv instead of dir, copy, move
But these aren't commands typed by users, so having move obvious names
seems correct.

--
Gary Jennejohn