On 25/05/14 07:12AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > The `object_directory` structure is used as an access point for a single > object directory like ".git/objects". While the structure isn't yet > fully self-contained, the intent is for it to eventually contain all > information required to access objects in one specific location. > > While the name "object directory" is a good fit for now, this will > change over time as we continue with the agenda to make pluggable object > databases a thing. Eventually, objects may not be accessed via any kind > of directory at all anymore, but they could instead be backed by any > kind of durable storage mechanism. While it seems quite far-fetched for > now, it is thinkable that eventually this might even be some form of a > database, for example. > > As such, the current name of this structure will become worse over time > as we evolve into the direction of pluggable ODBs. Immediate next steps > will start to carve out proper self-contained object directories, which > requires us to pass in these object directories as parameters. Based on > our modern naming schema this means that those functions should then be > named after their subsystem, which means that we would start to bake the > current name into the codebase more and more. > > Let's preempt this by renaming the structure to `odb_alternate` now > already. This name is agnostic of how exactly objects are stored while > still specifically pinpointing that this is about an alternate object > database. Furthermore, it is already used in Git to represent this > context -- the only stretch is that the primary object directory is now > the primary alternate. I know the naming here has been discussed in other threads, but `odb_alternate` doesn't feel quite right to me. When I think of an object database alternate, I think of the additional object sources that may be configured for a repository.
