Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] object-store: rename `object_directory` to `odb_alternate`

From: Patrick Steinhardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:39:10 +0200

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:18:22PM +0200, Toon Claes wrote:
> Justin Tobler <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > That's fair. Between `odb_backend` and `odb_alternate`, I would probably
> > still prefer the former, but ultimately I'll acclimate to whatever is
> > choosen. :)
> >
> > -Justin
> 
> I feel you. But speaking as a non-native English-speaking person, I can
> settle for "alternate" because I can still wire my brain to give it the
> meaning we're using here.
> 
> But if you like another name, I want to steer away from "backend" as
> well. As mentioned elsewhere, a "backend" sounds like an implementation
> of an object database, not the instance of an odb. But I'm open to other
> suggestions. I've been browsing thesaurus for a bit, unfortunately I
> didn't find anything better.

This ultimately _will_ host the backend implementations -- every
alternate is backed by one specific backend. The problem why we still
wanted to steer away from "backend" is that `odb_backend` rather sounds
as if the complete object database has one backend that can be switched.
That's why we settled on "alternate" instead, to clarify that there is
not a 1:1 relationship between the object database and the respective
backends.

`odb_source` does not have the same problem as `odb_backend`, so I
definitely think it's a way better name. But the reason why I think that
"alternate" is the better name is that I think it will get quite
confusing if we have both the terms "alternate" and "source". It would
make some of the interfaces quite awkward because it wouldn't always be
clear what exactly we are handling at any point in time.

Patrick