On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:33:45AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 16:15 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:58:54AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
As long as we're on the subject of naming (and before it's too late), it's been bothering me that we keep calling this "storage pool discovery". To me, "storage source discovery" seems more accurate (because they're not pools until we define libvirt pools based on the sources). So I'd prefer renaming the various *Discover[Storage]Pools* functions (and support structs) introduced in this patch to *Discover[Storage]Sources*. I was just sticking with the originally-proposed names to avoid confusion. What do you all think?
That sounds like a reasonable idea to me.
[Sorry to harp on the naming issue. But names are important, and we can't change them once they're in the API ...]
After making the change I suggested above, it now feels a little strange because "Pool" is gone from the name. I'm starting to think "*Discover[Storage]PoolSources*" is the only good choice. It's rather long, but makes it clear we're talking about storage pool sources (as opposed to "storage sources", which feels a little ambiguous, or "storage pools" which isn't accurate since they're not (yet) pools).
Discover is a bit of a long word - lets use 'Find' instead, so it makes the API name a little shorter - and no worse than our existing longest API name. In other words: virConnectFindStoragePoolSources() Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|