Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 22, 2022. It is now read-only.

Alter the terminology #137

Open
erthink opened this issue Nov 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Alter the terminology #137

erthink opened this issue Nov 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@erthink
Copy link
Owner

erthink commented Nov 16, 2020

Historically libmdbx uses the terminology (i.e. environment, database, sub-database, DBI, etc) inherited from the LMDB.
However, the terms suggested by @snej seem to me so much more successful and appropriate.

@snej
Copy link
Contributor

snej commented Nov 16, 2020

Thanks 😊 I've been using those terms in my code for a while, but I hadn't proposed them for libmdbx because I figured you'd want to stay consistent with LMDB.

@AskAlexSharov
Copy link
Contributor

unclear why need special term "snapshot"? why "read transaction" is not enough?

@snej
Copy link
Contributor

snej commented Nov 23, 2020

When learning LMDB I initially found "transaction" confusing for a read-only mode, especially since it's required for any access to keys/values.

Also, my wrapper has an OO API, with regular transactions a subclass of read-only ones, and I always find it a bad sign when a base class name is an extension of a subclass name.

@mahlonsmith
Copy link

For what it's worth, I adopted @snej 's terminology for the Ruby bindings. Coming from ZFS systems, "snapshot" feels the perfect term for its behavior.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants