Discussion: Streamline usage of "Adaptor" vs. "Adapter" in code for Flow 4.0/Neos 3.0?

Creating Neos & Flow Code
1

Moving the discussion here from slack to decide on this openly:

Alexander Berl [10:18 AM]
One question on something that is bugging me for a bit now: Who named the package “Fluid.Adaptor”? And do we maybe want to correctly spell it before the release?

Dmitri Pisarev [10:22 AM]
would have never noticed myself

[10:22]
just keep it a secret

Robert Lemke [10:22 AM]
we were aware of it. It’s a mess - we have both notations all over Flow and Neos.

Alexander Berl [10:23 AM]
hm, ok, apparently, both writings are “correct”, it’s just that “Adapter” is the much more widely used spelling

Dmitri Pisarev [10:23 AM]
http://grammarist.com/spelling/adapter-adaptor/

Alexander Berl [10:23 AM]
@robert might still be a chance to correct and streamline the spelling now, no?

[10:25]
I mean while we already have all the renaming mess anyway

Robert Lemke [10:26 AM]
you mean, everywhere in Flow / Neos?

[10:27]
sigh. Then I guess we won’t release this week anymore.

Alexander Berl [10:27 AM]
yeah, from a quick search it seems like 95% of “Adaptor” stems from the FluidAdaptor package

Robert Lemke [10:28 AM]
Let’s move over to some public channel, ideally Discourse and check if we need to postpone the release in order to get that right. I agree, it’s a chance, but …

Some quick facts:

  • Both writings are valid according to dictionary (Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data), but “Adapter” is the far more widely used spelling (360 M google hits, vs. 65 M hits for “Adaptor”)

  • Currently, as of the 4.0 branch of Flow the word “Adaptor” has 100+ occurences, nearly all coming from the FluidAdaptor package. The word “Adapter” has 53 occurences, coming from CacheAdapter and StreamWrapperAdapter

  • UPDATE: as of the 3.0 branch of Neos the word “Adaptor” also has 100+ occurences, again nearly all coming from FluidAdaptor package plus from NodeDataLabelGeneratorAdaptor. The word “Adapter” has 38 occurences, coming from redirecthandler-neosadapter and otherwise mainly from the frontend javascript frameworks (ember.js, vie.js, select2.js…)

  • UPDATE2: The nature of this change is purely cosmetic, it has no other reasons, so consider this when voting!

So the question is: Should we go the extra mile and deal with this inconsistency now, possibly delaying the Release schedule?

  • Yes, go consistent possibly delaying release schedule
  • No, keep as is and stick to release schedule
  • I don’t care really
0 voters

If we had to go with a single consistent spelling, which should we pick?

  • Go for “Adapter”
  • Go for “Adaptor”
0 voters

EDIT: Fixed occurences of “Adapter” in Flow codebase (previously 54) and added numbers for the Neos codebase

2

Your stats are screwed, TreeWalkerAdapter is from doctrine and if you do that on an entire Flow/Neos installation it might look different.

In general adapter is probably more used than adaptor but I think if we changed it we also must change the ES CR Adaptor package…

I also would like to point out that all this was discussed and decided in the project-fluid-coord channel that was open for everyone and also could have brought up in the code review for the fluid adaptor. So IMHO it’s a bit late for that. A decision was made and I don’t think it has any bigger impact on things.

3

Your stats are screwed, TreeWalkerAdapter is from doctrine and if you do that on an entire Flow/Neos installation it might look different.

That’s correct, TreeWalkerAdapter is from doctrine - but I could only find one occurence inside the Flow code anyway. Gonna correct the post. Regarding the Neos numbers, I’ll just quickly try to setup a neos project locally and get the numbers.

I also would like to point out that all this was discussed and decided in the project-fluid-coord channel that was open for everyone and also could have brought up in the code review for the fluid adaptor. So IMHO it’s a bit late for that.

That really must have passed by me, so maybe that’s a bit of fault on my side too, I must admit. But look at it this way: We currently have a definite inconsistency in the code base regarding that usage and we now have a big bang release with lots of renaming mess anyway. So this is probably our best chance in a whole while to fix this.

I don’t think it has any bigger impact on things.

Absolutely right, it’s merely a style inconsistency, no big impact at all.

4

FYI: The original discussion about the Fluid package: https://neos-project.slack.com/archives/project-fluid-coord/p1475651486000002

Personally I prefer “adapter” because I’m used to it. But I don’t think that we need to “streamline” this after the fact…

1 Like
5

Thanks for the link!

6

side note: I agree, and you’re right that the decision has been taken and everyone could have participated. However, for future decisions I suggest that we consider using our new decision scheme more often. In future cases like these (defining a name of a core package and unsure about the name) we should put up a Discourse post and ask the team to vote. Because I can also understand that not everyone in the team follows all initivatives, and sometimes decisions like these also get lost in the stream of a Slack conversation.

2 Likes
7

Of course, now that we have a process. But I would like to stress that in a major undertaking like the Fluid thing I don’t see myself setting up countless decision processes for people that are not even involved. Also it’s pretty hard in such a flow of work to decide what might be a worthy decision and what not. In hindsight I cannot even say that I would have put this up for the decision process if it had been in place back then. IMHO it’s a minor detail.

8

Closed the polls, I guess the votes were clearly in favor of sticking with the inconsistency instead of delaying the release further. Thanks everyone for voting!