Compositing, Aggregating, Unifying, Consolidating, Coalescing.
(Courtesy of an online thesaurus )
But I agree that the concept behind composition is the right one. All
in all, the MultiplexingNodeStore is a pretty standard implementation
of the Composite design pattern.
Robert
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:20 +0200, Dominik Süß wrote:
> 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" <romb...@apache.org>:
>
> 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 <jsedd...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <reka...@adobe.com>
> > > 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
> > > > reka...@adobe.com
> > > >
