This post is to discuss ideas for nomenclature to use when discussion the new Catalyst API that uses Conduit and the new way of writing Python scripts for Catalyst.
My reply to this question in another thread: Proposal: Catalyst V2 Bidirectional API - #4 by utkarsh.ayachit
My only comment would be I strongly dislike using “Catalyst 2.0” vs “CatalystV2” to represent different things. May I propose that the new Catalyst+Conduit API be called “CatalystAPI 2.0”? The other one is harder for me, how about “CatalystScript 2.0” or CatalystTrace 2.0?
I wonder if we should consider options that do not include 2 or any form of it entirely. So long as both names have 2, I suspect folks will keep using different leading text based on what pops up in their minds at the moment.
I agree with @utkarsh.ayachit. I see why @wascott dislikes Catalyst 2.0. But my worry is that if we go with Catalyst V2 we will end up with weird names like Catalyst V2 1.4.
My issue isn’t with a number, such as 2.0, OR V2. My issue is that the old proposal (as per the link I posted above) is that Catalyst 2.0 represents the Catalyst+Conduit API, AND that Catalyst V2 represents the new Catalyst Python scripts. Catalyst 2.0 vs Catalyst V2? That’s a nightmare. So, what should we call these two, new, different concepts? I do NOT necessarily want a V2 anywhere in the proposal.
With regards to Uktarsh’s comments, how do we differentiate “old” from “new” API, and “old” from “new” scripts? I still like Catalyst API 2.0 (for the Conduit based API). I haven’t come up with a good answer for the new Python Scripts, and am all ears…
Drat on Sandia’s firewall. What was just emailed is not what is in the post. See this post for what I wrote.