Let's discuss what we can improve, and then see the impact. FWIW, we have both DataObject and Persistent. "Persistent" seems ok, and we can get rid of DataObject.
ObjectContext is a "context" :) (i.e. an isolated scope). PersistentContext maybe? Andrus > On Nov 22, 2023, at 8:46 AM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In that case, I'd like to throw out my nomination for a class/name change... > > ObjectContext (and I guess BaseContext) > > The words "object" and "context" don't really provide a new user or someone > maintaining an app with any idea what they do. I guess I'd also add "data" > to that list (such as in DataObject -- what exactly is this?). The word > "base" is a bit better since it seems to imply the top-level "context" > (whatever that is). I know when I was teaching new developers on Cayenne > projects this naming kind of caused their eyes to glaze over for a bit. I'd > mainly have to wavy-hands them and tell them "just remember you need an > ObjectContext to..." > > Before spitballing new names, what are thoughts/feelings on this? Yes, it > would be a lot of global search/replace, but probably not too much effort > outside of that. (Use a shell script to automate that task in the code and > docs, but the docs might need a bit more polishing.) > > Thanks > mrg > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 7:18 AM Andrus Adamchik <aadamc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think there's going to be quite a few. Since we got rid of ROP, we can >> tighten our naming everywhere - modules, packages, classes. >> >> Andrus >> >> >> >>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 8:07 AM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Nikita! >>> >>> Both sound very reasonable to me, so +1 for that. >>> >>> Will there be any backward-compatibility breaking changes in 5.x? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> mrg >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 3:04 AM Nikita Timofeev < >> ntimof...@objectstyle.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Wanted to share a couple of my thoughts about changes that could be good >>>> for Cayenne. And the first milestone release of Cayenne 5.0 could be a >>>> perfect target for these changes. >>>> >>>> 1. Get rid of the `server` part in the names everywhere, starting by >>>> renaming our core dependency from `cayenne-server` to just `cayenne`. >>>> As we already removed the `client` counterpart, `server` just doesn't >> make >>>> sense anymore. >>>> >>>> 2. Change of the versioning schema we use for the development cycle. A >>>> short version of the proposal: drop BETA versions, keep the version of >>>> snapshot build always the same, and slightly change format to articulate >>>> what is the actual version. >>>> >>>> Format would look like `MAJOR.MINOR-QUALIFIER`. Where the qualifier is >> one >>>> of `SNAPSHOT`, `M` for the milestone or `RC` for the release candidate. >>>> >>>> Example for the 5.0: >>>> - snapshot always stays as 5.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - milestones releases are 5.0-M1, 5.0-M2 etc. >>>> - release candidates are 5.0-RC1, 5.0-RC2, etc. >>>> - and final release is just 5.0 >>>> >>>> And here's a reason for that change. It solves two minor problems with >> the >>>> current schema. The first one is that all systems think that `B` goes >>>> before `M`, so our beta versions always look older than milestones. We >> are >>>> not that strict about what is beta nor are we enforcing any rules, so >> there >>>> should be no problems with that. >>>> The second one is that projects using SNAPSHOT versions should update >>>> dependency every time we make a dev release. Again not a big change and >>>> should not affect anything really, as there shouldn't be many projects >>>> brave enough to just use SNAPSHOT. >>>> >>>> Note this change does not affect overall versioning, e.g. patch versions >>>> like 5.0.1 or global updates like 5.1. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Nikita Timofeev >>>> >> >>
