Re: Refactoring / renaming Channel -> Pv

[Matej S. <mat...@co...>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ralph Lange <Ral...@gm...> wrote:

>  On 22.11.2013 03:39, White, Greg wrote:
>
> I thought our plan was to refactor names in source and documentation so
> as
> not to use words containing "channel" when referring to a pv rather than
> to a
> channel. pvAccess will [continue to] connect to pvs [through a channel].
> If that's so,
> then Marty would be happy, right?
>
>  The Diamond meeting 2nd day minutes say only :
>   Discussion about meaning of channel, process variable, etc.
>   AI:  BD will start glossary.   [<-- I'd love this! ]
>   What to do about code and existing documentation? Future discussion.
>
>  *Ralph* and *Matej*, can you make a short list of the refactors you have
> in mind,
> actually name-for-changed-name.
> Doesn't have to be the full list, just something concrete, so
> we can see the difference of what you're talking with respect to "channel"
> as
> opposed to Channel Access, and interop of the pvAccess module (including
> its
> various providers) with base IOCs and pvIOCs.
>
>
> The only mention in meeting minutes is the one you found from 30 Apr 2013,
> which falls somewhat short of what I remember from the discussion.
>
> I do remember opening the discussion with a statement along the lines of
> "I assume we are all fine with Channel Access connecting to PVs and
> pvAccess connecting to channels, and no one finds this confusing."
> Then discussion, then agreement that it is important to have our APIs
> clear and comprehensive, even if that means additional work to refactor
> things.
>
> Bob volunteered to create a glossary, which should define the terms for
> our context, and, once agreed upon, be the guide for straightening out
> names.
>
> [1] has a nice list of classes in the CPP implementation of pvAccess, with
> lots of name parts being "Channel". Which of those should rather be "Pv"
> completely depends on the exact definitions of Channel and Pv in our
> context. One could probably justify everything from only a few to almost
> all of them.
>
> Bob, we need the glossary.
>
> Cheers,
> ~Ralph
>
> [1]
> http://epics-pvdata.sourceforge.net/docbuild/pvAccessCPP/tip/documentation/html/namespaceepics_1_1pvAccess.html
>
> ps. IMHO some of the class names are just hilarious. My favourite is
> BaseChannelRequesterFailureMessageTransportSender - that almost sounds
> German.
>

That's mine! I like descriptive names (and German language). Sadly this
name is not part of the public API ;)
I should move it to detail namespace.

Matej