Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consistent naming of document-client directory to match class DocumentClient #36

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mzkrasner
Copy link
Contributor

  • Updates to generated documentation, package-specific imports, package naming, and directory naming to match DocumentClient

@mzkrasner mzkrasner requested a review from nathanielc December 5, 2024 20:22
Copy link
Collaborator

@nathanielc nathanielc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this but I think we should rename all model-instance-* packages so its consistent. And we should call out in the README description of the package names that document is short for model instance document.

I think only model-instance-handler and model-instance-protocol are left to be renamed.

We should also grep the whole code base for model-instance once this is done to ensure we caught all of them.

@stbrody
Copy link

stbrody commented Dec 5, 2024

So this is actually going the opposite direction from some changes I had asked Paul to make. I don't really want to call the client something as generic as DocumentClient, because I think it's quite likely that we have multiple streamtypes that operate on JSON documents in the future. Happy to be overridden here, but want to make sure we're thinking about a future where there are multiple json-document based streamtypes with different semantics and how they will all coexist, especially if ModelInstanceDocument is potentially no longer our recommended go-to general purpose JSON document streamtype anymore.

@mzkrasner mzkrasner closed this Dec 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants