Re: [PATCH v4 02/17] object-store: rename `object_directory` to `odb_source`

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > The `object_directory` structure is used as an access point for a single
> > object directory like ".git/objects". While the structure isn't yet
> > fully self-contained, the intent is for it to eventually contain all
> > information required to access objects in one specific location.
> >
> > While the name "object directory" is a good fit for now, this will
> > change over time as we continue with the agenda to make pluggable object
> > databases a thing. Eventually, objects may not be accessed via any kind
> > of directory at all anymore, but they could instead be backed by any
> > kind of durable storage mechanism. While it seems quite far-fetched for
> > now, it is thinkable that eventually this might even be some form of a
> > database, for example.
> >
> > As such, the current name of this structure will become worse over time
> > as we evolve into the direction of pluggable ODBs. Immediate next steps
> > will start to carve out proper self-contained object directories, which
> > requires us to pass in these object directories as parameters. Based on
> > our modern naming schema this means that those functions should then be
> > named after their subsystem, which means that we would start to bake the
> > current name into the codebase more and more.
> >
> > Let's preempt this by renaming the structure. There have been a couple
> > alternatives that were discussed:
> >
> >   - `odb_backend` was discarded because it led to the association that
> >     one object database has a single backend, but the model is that one
> >     alternate has one backend. Furthermore, "backend" is more about the
> >     actual backing implementation and less about the high-level concept.
> >
> >   - `odb_alternate` was discarded because it is a bit of a stretch to
> >     also call the main object directory an "alternate".
> >
> > Instead, pick `odb_source` as the new name. It makes it sufficiently
> > clear that there can be multiple sources and does not cause confusion
> > when mixed with the already-existing "alternate" terminology.
> >
> > In the future, this change allows us to easily introduce for example a
> > `odb_files_source` and other format-specific implementations.
> 
> Sorry for being pedantic (but I guess this series is all about naming
> anyway, so better get it right), but wouldn't this be
> `odb_files_backend`?