Consider renaming #27
Assignees
Milestone
Comments
|
If we are going to do this, I would do it before v1.0.0 which we should be releasing soon. We would need a name and also I would like approvals by @zdobersek and @carlosgcampos (at least) before proceeding. Do you have any suggestion for the name? I would rather go with something which describes what the library does, for example it could be |
|
WPEInterface, WPEBackendInterface, libwpe... I'm not picky. |
|
Now that I think of it, using My suggestion is therefore to use @carlosgcampos @zdobersek: WDYT? |
aperezdc
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2018
This library does not actually implement any backend for WPE, and therefore its name can be misleading. Instead, it contains the code needed by WebKit to interface with actual backend implementations, loading them, and some utility code. The libwpe name is much more fitting. This is a good moment to do this rename, because the API version will be bumped for release 1.0.0 as well: packagers and users of the library will need to update anyway for the API version change and rebuild software which uses libWPEBackend^W libwpe anyway. Fixes #27
aperezdc
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2018
This library does not actually implement any backend for WPE, and therefore its name can be misleading. Instead, it contains the code needed by WebKit to interface with actual backend implementations, loading them, and some utility code. The libwpe name is much more fitting. This is a good moment to do this rename, because the API version will be bumped for release 1.0.0 as well: packagers and users of the library will need to update anyway for the API version change and rebuild software which uses libWPEBackend^W libwpe anyway. Fixes #27
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The name WPEBackend is problematic because it sounds like a backend, not a dependency of the actual backends. Even people who would be expected to have some experience with WPE fail to understand this, and that's reasonable since you would certainly expect it to be a backend.
I think we've discussed this in the past and decided to keep the name, but it's a bad name and should be corrected before the damage becomes too great. E.g. we have a Fedora package now
wpebackend, but it's new: changing the package name now would be less problematic than waiting a couple years and then changing it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: