Re: Refactoring / renaming Channel -> Pv

[Ralph L. <Ral...@gm...>]

On 25.02.2014 13:16, Marty Kraimer wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 04:19 PM, White, Greg wrote:
>> Ralph's point is also good though '[we should] rename/refactor our 
>> modules to replace
>> the term "channel" with "pv", so that pvAccess connects to pvs
>
> "Channel" or "channel" occurs the following number of times:
>
> pvAccessJava  9223
> pvIOCJava        1367
> pvAccessCPP  3925
> pvDatabaseCPP 2012
> total              16527
>
> Thus easy to say "just replace "channel" with "pv" but not so simple 
> to do AND fix everything that breaks.
> Also consider.

Note that I never said we should replace every occurrence of the string 
"channel".
Even the short quote mentioned above clearly says "so that pvAccess 
connects to pvs", i.e. I was suggesting to replace the term "channel" 
with "pv" in cases where it denotes the end point of communication.

> class Channel becomes class Pv (or should it be PV?)
> The methods of Channel like createChannelGet become createPvGet or 
> createPVGet.
> The classes like ChannelGet become PvGet or PVGet.

Again: that was never my suggestion.

> I think PvGet is really ugly.

Besides the point.

> Also I maintain that ChannelGet is more descriptive than PVGet, i. 
> e.ChannelGet provides a communication channel that allows a client to 
> get data from a  server.
> How does PVGet express the same idea?
>
> Just what is  the compelling reason to make this change?
> I do not see one.

Who suggested to make this change? I certainly didn't.

~Ralph