`History` has a vague name

[guidanoli]

📚 Context

Currently, we only have one implementation of the IHistory interface, which accepts individual claims. We envision to implement, in the future, other types of history contracts. For example, one that accepts aggregated claims.

For this reason, it seems inappropriate to call our simple implementation just History. It might give the false impression to developers that we only intend to have one implementation of the IHistory interface.

Given that we'll change the History contract anyway, we can take this opportunity to give it a less vague name.

Renaming the History contract would impact any software that uses this name directly. Examples:

• A Solidity contract that imports History from @cartesi/rollups/contracts/history/History.sol.
• An off-chain component written in Rust that uses language binding history.rs for interacting with the History contract.

Given that #133 will already have an important impact on the History contract, renaming it might be even help draw attention from developers to the breaking changes.

✔️ Solution

We can rename History as SimpleHistory. Other name suggestions are welcome!

[pedroargento]

I don't think simple history is a lot less vague than history. Its hard to think of a name without knowing others kinds of history, because we should name it in a way that directly differentiate them.

So for now the best suggestion I can offer based in the example given is: IndividualClaimsHistory <> AggregatedClaimsHistory

[guidanoli]

I am fine with IndividualClaimsHistory. :-)

[ZzzzHui]

Even History <> AggregatedClaimsHistory doesn't seem to be far off IMO. But I'm ok with IndividualClaimsHistory (or IndividualClaimHistory) too :)