I think that changing them for the first release makes sense otherwise you will need to decide on deprecation or backward compatibility, etc. None of which is a big deal but starting for a first Apache release with the names set seems nice and clean.
That said, a lot of podlings do come in and concentrate on just getting the first Apache release out with minimal changes in order to get the Apache release mechanics under their fingers and exercised well. This would indeed allow folks that are used to the existing classnames and testing to review and test the release with their existing knowledge. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:59 AM Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion about the proposed renaming but for > end-users and consumers it may be easier to not change too many things > at once. Some renaming (like packaging and OneTableXX) is unavoidable > to be compliant with ASF branding and release guidelines and it is > good to do them early but all the rest are not urgent and could be > done in subsequent releases if necessary. > > Best, > Stamatis > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:47 AM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Thank you, Tim and Larry! > > I appreciate the suggestion and the feedback. I’m on board with using > > Conversion* as the class names. > > > > Best, > > Ashvin > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 8:24 AM larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I like the proposed renaming away from *Client's. > > > SourceReader and TargetWriter seem to imply that there are > SourceWriter and > > > TargetReader though and otherwise it is kind of redundant. > > > At the same time, Source implies reading and Target implies writing, I > > > think. > > > > > > Given the ConversionController suggestion, what about ConversionSource > and > > > ConversionTarget? > > > Maybe a little long but lines up well. > > > > > > Anyway, I don't have strong opinions here other than I am happy to see > the > > > *Client's go. :) > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 8:40 AM Tim Brown <tim.brown...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ashvin, > > > > > > > > I like your recommendation and reasoning for not including metadata > in > > > the > > > > name. I think SourceReader and TargetWriter are a good option. > Including > > > > 'table' may make the names too long when also prefixing with a format > > > name. > > > > > > > > I agree on the need to change OneTableClient as well. > > > ConversionController > > > > has my vote. > > > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:57 PM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > As we’re considering the renaming of “clients,” I’d like to bring > up > > > the > > > > > OneTableClient as well. Given its role in overseeing the lifecycle > of a > > > > > conversion request, it seems fitting to rename it in line with the > > > source > > > > > and target clients. My suggestion would be to opt for either > > > > > ConversionController or TranslationController. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Ashvin > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:38 PM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > The confusion regarding HTTP clients seems to stem from the term > > > > “Client” > > > > > > rather than “Source” and “Target”. Therefore, rather than > > > substituting > > > > > > “Source” and “Target” with “Metadata”, would it be better to > replace > > > > > > “Client” with "Reader" and "Writer" or "TableReader" and > > > "TableWriter"? > > > > > The > > > > > > new base classes would then be “SourceReader” and “TargetWriter” > or > > > > > > "SourceTableReader" and "TargetTableWriter". > > > > > > Additionally, if positional deletes are categorized as data, > then the > > > > > term > > > > > > “MetadataReader” would not accurately reflect the nature of the > > > source > > > > > > class. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ashvin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:39 AM Tim Brown < > tim.brown...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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/ > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
