I think we should probably also rename the whole concept from resolver to spec provider, WDYT?

would this lead to a new package since this one is called repository?

I will update the docs once the discussions are resolved

I think we should probably also rename the whole concept from resolver to spec provider, WDYT?

would this lead to a new package since this one is called repository?

I believe it would

To be honest, I'd really love to get rid of the whole resolver term for this concept and completely switch to [repository] spec provider. repository spec provider is descriptive and concise, while resolver is completely generic and could be anything - WDYT?

This would also include a renaming of the corresponding config.

To be honest, I'd really love to get rid of the whole resolver term for this concept and completely switch to [repository] spec provider. repository spec provider is descriptive and concise, while resolver is completely generic and could be anything - WDYT?

This would also include a renaming of the corresponding config.

Current Name: SpecResolver

since its in the Repository package, we would not prepend Repository in front of the name.
I don't get the naming back and forth to be honest.

In the ticket, it was mentioned resolver. We use "ocm.software/open-component-model/bindings/go/configuration/resolvers/v1/matcher" in the SpecProvider/Resolver/WhatEver

We use the resolver package in binding. So why cant we keep the name as is? We might also add more implementations of RepositorySpecProvider

I would rather rename the interface to SpecProvider and the implementation someone like 'ResolverSpecProvider'

Otherwise feel free to rename what you think makes sense :D

When you began the issue, we didn't even have the repository spec provider interface. The original resolver concept is implemented completely different from the spec provider (as it implemented a component version repository). I also said that my suggestion would require to also go back and rename the configuration package.

I'm just trying to keep the naming consistent across the library, as this makes searching through it much easier too as it grows.

The interface providing component version repositories is called ComponentVersionRepositoryProvider, so I'd call the interface providing component version repository specifications ComponentVersionRepositorySpecProvider - that also provides a rather natural auto-complete experience as they will have to be used together.

Happy to hear other peoples opinions too @Skarlso @jakobmoellerdev. Might be that I care about the naming too much here.

I don't mind longer names as long as they make sense together with their packages names + the function name. That's how you call them right? oci repository.ComponentVersionRepositorySpecProvider.GetRepositorySpec contains a lot of Repository in it, not?

@fabianburth can you just rename the things as you wish? I really don't mind anymore at this point :D

closing in favor of #905