Hi Everyone, As we are working through the renaming, I would like to suggest that we rename the SourceClient and TargetClient interfaces to MetadataReader and MetadataWriter respectively. I think that some users and developers may think of these as http clients.
What does everyone think? Any other suggestions? Thanks, Tim On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 11:24 PM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Jesus, Tim, > Thanks for the feedback. > > Tim, the ‘Internal’ prefix sounds good to me, it was my initial thought as > well. It is simple and descriptive, and decouples the library’s name from > its functionality. > My only worry is that it might lead to lengthy class names. However, I’m > willing to test it in a pull request and we can discuss it further if > necessary. > A shorter option is Inner. > > Best, > Ashvin > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 6:08 AM Tim Brown <tim.brown...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > One other option is to prefix with "Internal" or something similar > instead > > of the XT so it's clear it is our intermediate representation. > > > > -Tim > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < > > jcama...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Ashvin! > > > > > > I think the proposal makes sense. Otherwise, we may find ourselves > > needing > > > to explicitly reference the classes using the namespace too often for > > > common names across table formats. > > > > > > -Jesús > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:09 PM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > I wanted to discuss our class naming conventions, particularly > > concerning > > > > the use of prefixes. As we approach our first release, it's crucial > to > > > > finalize a convention that enhances code readability without > > compromising > > > > on best practices. > > > > > > > > Classes such as DataFile and Schema often exist in all open table > > > formats. > > > > Using the same name in XTable can lead to confusion. A short prefix > > like > > > > 'XT' could distinguish these effectively. However, I am aware that > some > > > > consider prefixing an anti-pattern and may have reservations about > this > > > > approach. [1][2] > > > > > > > > For context, since XTable was previously OneTable, it has left many > > > classes > > > > prefixed with 'One'. While we could continue this tradition, we could > > > adopt > > > > a hybrid approach. For classes where ambiguity is high, we would > adopt > > > the > > > > 'XT' prefix. In other cases, we would opt for non-prefixed names, > > > > maintaining simplicity and clarity. > > > > > > > > I believe this strategy offers a balanced solution, but your input is > > > > invaluable. Please share your thoughts and suggestions. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Ashvin > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.yegor256.com/2020/03/03/prefixed-naming.html > > > > [2] > > > https://www.nikolaposa.in.rs/blog/2019/01/06/better-naming-convention/ > > > > > > > > > >
