references to "destroying" a machine

[James Beedy]

Thanks, John.

I'm trying to better familiarize myself with the juju-core code base. Is
this an area that could use refactoring, or do you think a refactor for
terminology consistency would lead to confusion in the sense that machines
are actually being "destroyed" even though the command the user runs is a
"remove" command?



On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:08 PM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

> This is a case where we had 'destroy-machine' as an operation in 1.x but
> changed the name for 2.0 to help with consistency, but that change didn't
> propagate throughout the code base.
>
> John
> =:->
> On Jun 22, 2016 2:40 AM, "James Beedy" <jamesbeedy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey whats up guys? - Will there be a 'destroy-machine' command in the
>> future?
>>
>> On that, do you think it would it be wise, or confusing to refactor
>> references to 'DestroyMachine' or 'DestroyedMachines' or  whatever
>> variation of 'destroy machine' to a similar variation of 'remove machine'?
>>
>> I'm thinking references in the code base to variations of 'destroy
>> machine' could be refactored to a similar variation of 'remove machine' for
>> consistency/readability/understandability ..... I guess I'm a bit confused
>> because 'destroying' a machine operations are carried out by the code,
>> but 'destroying' a machine is not a user facing op. What I'm getting at (I
>> think) is that there seems to be an unclear distinction on whether the
>> references to 'destroying' a machine in the codebase should be
>> 'removing' a machine - also function and class names including references
>> to 'destroying' a machine?
>>
>>
>> ~James
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160621/e15b3f6e/attachment.html>