Re: [discuss] find a better name for KameletBinding

[Luca Burgazzoli <lb...@gmail.com>]

Opened an issue on camel-k to rename KameletBinding to Binding:
https://github.com/apache/camel-k/issues/2625

---
Luca Burgazzoli


On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:14 PM Marat Gubaidullin <
marat.gubaidullin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
> It looks like we already have "Bindings" but it was deprecated
>
>
> https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.7/rest_api/api/v1.Binding.html
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:18 AM Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Yeah one of the hardest problem is naming, and after that renaming as
> > a lot of old stuff "expects" the old name.
> >
> > I am also leading to Binding, as we have other concepts in Camel K
> > that are neutral named (no Camel or product in the name) like
> > Integration, IntegrationKit.
> > And they are all in the same namespace, so there are no clash on
> > kubernetes.
> >
> > +1 for Binding
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:59 AM John Poth <po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for Binding
> > >
> > > Dropping the Kamelet part makes it clearer that you can bind more
> > > than just Kamelets.
> > >
> > > Keeping it as "Binding" gives Kubernetes users a pretty good idea of
> what
> > > it's going to do without reading the documentation.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:04 PM Antonin Stefanutti
> > > <an...@stefanutti.fr.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Luca, all,
> > > >
> > > > +1 for Binding.
> > > >
> > > > Users in the Kubernetes ecosystem may already be familiar with the
> > term,
> > > > as it seems it's the choice made by projects like Knative and Service
> > > > Binding,
> > > > to convey the general concept of "integrating" in their respective
> > domain.
> > > >
> > > > I find projecting that concept into the integration domain to be a
> good
> > > > fit, which
> > > > Would materialises in Kubernetes as bindings.camel.apache.org<
> > > > http://bindings.camel.apache.org> resources.
> > > >
> > > > On 16 Aug 2021, at 10:27, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazzoli@gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> > > > lburgazzoli@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > When the KameletBinding concept was introduced in camel-k, if was
> > meant to
> > > > bind two Kamelets and nothing more, but over time we have added more
> > > > capabilities, like:
> > > >
> > > > - support for processing steps to transform exchanges/messages
> > > > - support to address/source from different systems so the source/sink
> > does
> > > > not need be a kamelet anymore
> > > >
> > > > So I think the term KameletBinding is not more appropriate and to
> > reduce
> > > > confusion, we should try to find a better name.
> > > >
> > > > On top of my mind, I'd see the following names as a possible
> > replacement:
> > > > - Binding so leave Kamelet out of the game as Kamelets are one of the
> > > > option but not the exclusive on
> > > > - Connector as in essence, a KameletBinding describe how to connect A
> > to B
> > > >
> > > > Any opinion ?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Luca Burgazzoli
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
> >
>