Naming discussions - love it (where is my popcorn? ;) ) I would think that something with Compositing might be suitable as this is about composition of something that works as as final result but the artifacts might not be useful on their own.
Cheers Dominik Am 05.05.2017 20:40 schrieb "Robert Munteanu" <[email protected]>: Hi, On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 07:18 -0600, Matt Ryan wrote: > 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? I think the high-level intent is the same for both - compose a single {Data,Node}Store out of multiple sub-stores. The mechanisms might be different though, as the the NodeStore is hierarchical in nature, while the BlobStore blob ids are opaque. Also I still maintain :-) that federated blob stores will work well individually as they have no overall hierarchy to respect, while the multiplexed node stores will have to be composed to create a meaningful image. Robert > > -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] > > >
