Closed CodeLionX closed 6 years ago
Naming Conventions:
RowRelation
to RowStore
?Change current
UserDef
User
toUser
user
I'm actually not sure if I like the SomethingDef
naming for RelationDef
s, because when interacting with the Relation
, e.g. creating a new Record
and using the Relation
s ColumnDef
s, I feel like using RelationDef.ColumnName
adds another layer of indirection that I feel is unnecessary. This does not relate to the trait
itself as much as the naming of all RelationDef
s.
I think I would prefer that, if everything stays the same, the suggested pattern would be
// companion object
object UserInfo extends RelationDef {
// ...
}
// corresponding Dactor - as is defined in the PR now:
val userInfo: MutableRelation = RowRelation(UserInfo)
override protected val relations: Map[String, MutableRelation] = Map("userInfo" -> userRelation)
override def receive: Receive = Actor.emptyBehavior
rename RowRelation to RowStore?
I think this only really makes sense when we decide to call the technical side of things Store
and the definitions "go back" to be called Relation
without the Def
only. What do you think abou this? Otherwise I think the naming can remain as is.
@srfc I addressed your remarks, I hope this is now ok for you?
Proposed Changes
RelationDef
trait for defining relationsRowRelation(relationDef)
Related