Gateway names feedback


(Otis Gospodnetić) #1

Hi,

Some feedback re naming in Gateway module.

There is a "local" gw and a "shared FS" gw. Doesn't "local" really
mean "local FS"? If that's so, I think it would be less confusing if
"local" were named "localFS" and "fs" (which says nothing about this
being shared and makes it sounds like it's local) were named
"sharedFS". The thing I don't like is that "shared" is called "fs",
as if "local" is not "fs".

Otis

Sematext is hiring search engineers - http://sematext.com/about/jobs.html


(Shay Banon) #2

Agreed, not the best naming, but its historic. The first gateways
implementations were the shared ones, so they were named "fs", and "s3" for
example. When the local one came out (and became the default), we had to
live with it...

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <
otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Some feedback re naming in Gateway module.

There is a "local" gw and a "shared FS" gw. Doesn't "local" really
mean "local FS"? If that's so, I think it would be less confusing if
"local" were named "localFS" and "fs" (which says nothing about this
being shared and makes it sounds like it's local) were named
"sharedFS". The thing I don't like is that "shared" is called "fs",
as if "local" is not "fs".

Otis

Sematext is hiring search engineers - http://sematext.com/about/jobs.html


(system) #3