# Disambiguating Catalyst API version 2.0 and Catalyst Python Script version 2.0
**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266
**Category:** Development
**Created:** [May 20, 2021, 4:41pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266 "2021-05-20T16:41:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@utkarsh.ayachit](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/utkarsh.ayachit)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 4:41pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/1 "2021-05-20T16:41:09Z")
This post is to discuss ideas for nomenclature to use when discussion the new [Catalyst API](https://catalyst-in-situ.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) that uses Conduit and the [new way of writing Python scripts for Catalyst](https://kitware.github.io/paraview-docs/nightly/cxx/CatalystPythonScriptsV2.html).
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 4:53pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/2 "2021-05-20T16:53:12Z")
My reply to this question in another thread: [Proposal: Catalyst V2 Bidirectional API - #4 by utkarsh.ayachit](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/proposal-catalyst-v2-bidirectional-api/7258/4)
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?
---
### Author:  [@utkarsh.ayachit](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/utkarsh.ayachit)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/3 "2021-05-20T16:56:40Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Kenneth\_Moreland](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/Kenneth_Moreland)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 9:27pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/4 "2021-05-20T21:27:56Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 10:01pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/5 "2021-05-20T22:01:00Z")
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…
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2021, 10:03pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/disambiguating-catalyst-api-version-2-0-and-catalyst-python-script-version-2-0/7266/6 "2021-05-20T22:03:18Z")
Drat on Sandia’s firewall. What was just emailed is not what is in the post. See this post for what I wrote.