On 22/04/2016 14:08, Francesco Mari wrote: > As express offline, I would better choose a name that describes what the > module does without leaking how the module works internally. My proposals > are along the lines of "oak-local-store" and "oak-embedded-store". If > having "segment" in the name is a major concern, I would opt for > "oak-segment-store", as this name better describes what the module is > supposed to be.
I like oak-segment-store if we want to express the "segment". If we want to go on a more generic function oriented naming I prefer the oak-embedded-store. The only caveat is that we, for any reason, come up with another embedded store (which I don't think) to go along as option with segment we could be in a small empass. Therefore I'd like oak-segment-store. > > Since we are imagining the names of future NodeStore implementations, I > find useless to have every first-level folder prefixed with "oak-". If I > would lay out the project today, and assuming that our implementations > would live in separate modules, I would opt for a structure like the > following: > > /commons (oak-commons) > /segment (oak-segment) > /document/commons (oak-document-commons) > /document/mongo (oak-document-mongo) > /document/rdb (oak-document-rdb) > > Please note that I completely made up the names above to express my idea. While I can agree on dropping the "oak" in first-level directories don't really know if going for such restructure. On both this and previous topic I don't have any strong opinions. Davide
