RFC: Future of gnrc_networking

[miri64]

Thinking about a stack independent connection API (see #3615 #5758) and POSIX sockets and the final restructuring of GNRC for the last few days got me thinking about the future of the ng_networking app. Basically we have two paths we can go with it:

1. Keep it a pure GNRC example to keep it simple.
2. Rewrite it as a conn sock or even socket example, since netapi never was meant to be an end-user API.

For the first case I would rename the app to gnrc or gnrc_networking, for the second I would remove the ng_ prefix.

[PeterKietzmann]

I didn't look into #3615 so I can't rate the complexity. But to state my general opinion: I think it is mandatory to have an example that "presents" the whole stack, including the application layer API. Dependent on the parallels between to current "pure" ng_networking example and the new one, I would decide if it is reasonable to keep both applications in the master or not.

[cgundogan]

What's the current state of this issue? Can it be closed?

[miri64]

It'd like to have a little more discussion on that. Not just my opinion and @PeterKietzmann's ;)

[kaspar030]

+1 for the first route, rename and create a new one using conn.

[jnohlgard]

I agree with @kaspar030, create a new example for conn, keep the gnrc_networking example for easier testing of the gnrc stack.

[miri64]

Maybe I find some time until the release for this one.

[miri64]

Mh somehow it seems that I missread the comments. The rename to gnrc_networking already happened so let's close it :-).