Modifier rename

[chrisbanes]

Hi everyone. In v0.9 Haze was completely re-written in a way where the way that Haze works underneath was completely inverted.

Pre-v0.9, all of the drawing and logic was performed by your Modifier.haze node, and your Modifier.hazeChild nodes just updated some bounds state to tell the haze node where to blur. In this scenario, the naming of haze + hazeChild made sense.

In v0.9+ though, all of the blur effect drawing is now down by the hazeChild node. Your haze nodes are responsible for drawing their content into a GraphicsLayer for the hazeChild nodes to draw. In this instance, the naming is starting to get a bit tenuous.

Fast forward to the upcoming release, and the new ability for nested blurring effects (in #441), and the naming is now just plain wrong. 🫤

So, should we fix that? Naming is the hardest problem in software, and I thought I'd crowdsource it. I have added a few options that I've been thinking about, but please comment if you can think of something better.

[almozavr]

hazeSource + hazeEffect

[ajsmithsw]

@almozavr I like hazeSource! But perhaps hazeSource + hazeBackground? When I'm applying hazeChild to a composable it feels like I'm handling the background behaviour, just like if I was setting the .background() modifier, so would feel intuitive to me.

@chrisbanes this library is awesome btw, thank you 🙏

[almozavr]

hazeBackground sounds really good to me as well, agree

[chrisbanes]

I like hazeSource + hazeBackground.

The word background is a little ambiguous (see my comment below), but I think it's fine for this.

[sergejsha]

What do you think about naming child items to be fogged up/hazed as hazed (or hazeable) and the layer where they are shown hazy hazeBackground?

The naming could be then
a) hazed + hazeBackground or
b) hazeable + hazeBackground

[hrach]

From my POV anything with "background" makes me puzzled. Is that the "haze" or the "background source" for haze?

[hrach]

Therefore hazeSource + hazeEffect seems the best for me.

[chrisbanes]

Yeah, it's tricky as both could be called background really:

• haze captures background content
• hazeChild is basically a (very) complicated Modifier.background

[svenjacobs]

Thinking about it, I would prefer modifier names that clearly state where the haze effect is rendered (currently haze) and what is hazed (hazeChild). So I guess hazeBackdrop hazeSource and hazeEffect is the most logical to me.

[chrisbanes]

the haze effect is rendered (currently haze) and what is hazed (hazeChild)

It's actually the opposite 😬. haze captures the background content, hazeChild draws the effect as a background.

This is why I'm leaning towards hazeSource (haze) + hazeEffect (hazeChild), as it quite neatly captures their goals.

[svenjacobs]

Dammit, mixed those up. But still the where and what is important for me 😃

[chrisbanes]

Yeah, choosing between a verb vs subject is tricky when it comes to modifiers.

[sergejsha]

hazeSource + haze,
hazeUnderlay + hazeOverlay?

Defining a clear hierarchy in the names relieves mental effort needed for understanding where each modifier should be placed.

[chrisbanes]

Using haze isn't possible right now as it already exists. We can't deprecate something and then rename something else to it.

[chrisbanes]

Thanks everyone for the votes and suggestions! Y'all voted for hazeSource + hazeEffect, which I totally agree with. Implemented in #452