Restarting from this proposal to make a summary: 2017-12-04 14:16 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>:
> Not much input regarding this naming change. Personally, I like to keep > '<ManagedDomain' as is. > > I propose the following changes: > > 1. The simple, single line 'ManagedDomain' will be renamed to 'MDGroup' > 2. The not so intuitive differences between 'MDMember' and 'MDMembers' > will be solved by removing the 'MDMembers' directive. 'Auto' membership is > now always the default mode and can no longer be changed globally. 'Manual' > membership mode must be set explicitly for every MDGroup/ManagedDomain that > shall behave like that. > 3. 'MDStoreDir' will be renamed to 'MDStore' to leave room for future, > non-file based storage methods. > 4. 'MDCAChallenges' will be renamed to 'MDCertificateChallenge' to have > the same prefix as other directives for the signup/renewal protocol > 5. 'MDPrivateKeys' will be renamed to 'MDPrivateKey' as it was the last > one that used a plural wording. > > If no one objects, I will do the changes in the upcoming days. > So two things seem outstanding, if I got it correctly, reading from multiple threads: 1) ManagedDomain vs <ManagedDomain>: the similarity between the two directives may confuse users in the long term, so we should find a better naming. 2) The mod_md name may not be evocative enough for what it does (also no mention of TLS/SSL in its directive names, use a terminology like "domain" that is too broad, etc..). My personal view: I like Stefan's idea to renamed ManagedDomain as MDGroup (so all the directives of mod_md will have the MD prefix) but the remaining <ManagedDomain> (that IIUC is not changed) should also be renamed to say something like MDGroupDefine/MDGroupSandbox/MDGroupWhatever. We used the "Define" suffix for the SSLPolicy vs <SSLPolicyDefine> use case, so it might be a possibility to follow the same path with MDGroup / <MDGroupDefine>. At this point I would concentrate on gathering consensus on a solution for point 1), and use our docs to solve point 2). I do believe that it is a bit too late to start a rename for mod_md due to early adopters and announcements made, plus the (generic) name might allow us to add non-ACME-related features in the future. My main concern is that months of work spent into this awesome module get stuck for a long time due to naming debates (that are important but need to come to a conclusion soon :). Luca
