I was wondering about this also WRT federated data store. If the intent
and effect of both are the same ("both" meaning what is currently called
the "multiplexing node store" and the proposed (and in-progress) "federated
data store"), it seems they should use a similar naming convention at least.
WDYT? Does that make it more confusing or less confusing?
-MR
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Julian Sedding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tomek
>
> In all related discussions the term "mount" appears a lot. So why not
> Mounting NodeStore? The module could be "oak-store-mount".
>
> Regards
> Julian
>
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tomek Rekawek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello oak-dev,
> >
> > the multiplexing node store has been recently extracted from the
> oak-core into a separate module and I’ve used it as an opportunity to
> rename the thing. The name I suggested is Federated Node Store. Robert
> doesn’t agree it’s the right name, mostly because the “partial” node
> stores, creating the combined (multiplexing / federated) one, are not
> usable on their own and stores only a part of the overall repository
> content.
> >
> > Our arguments in their full lengths can be found in the OAK-6136 (last
> 3-4 comments), so there’s no need to repeat them here. We wanted to ask you
> for opinion about the name. We kind of agree that the “multiplexing” is not
> the best choice - can you suggest something else or maybe you think that
> “federated” is good enough?
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tomek
> >
> > --
> > Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com
> > [email protected]
> >
>
