Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Renaming NetCDFOutputWriter to NetCDFWriter #3936

Open
tomchor opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Renaming NetCDFOutputWriter to NetCDFWriter #3936

tomchor opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@tomchor
Copy link
Collaborator

tomchor commented Nov 18, 2024

We've talked about this before, since the "Output" part is pretty redundant and that name is on the verbose side. The same thing applies to JLD2OutputWriter. Should I go ahead and open a PR to make this change?

@tomchor
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tomchor commented Nov 18, 2024

cc @ali-ramadhan @glwagner

@ali-ramadhan
Copy link
Member

I'm in support of this change!

@glwagner
Copy link
Member

Happy for this. It affects #3793, maye we just use add_writer! then.

@glwagner
Copy link
Member

But note that the name of the output writers may not be very important after #3793 which abstracts away that concept. So I don't know if you want to wait for #3793

@tomchor
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tomchor commented Nov 18, 2024

I wasn't aware of that PR. I like it and I'll interact with it soon :)

I still think this (what I'm proposing) would be a positive change, although I agree its importance will be diminished after that PR is merged (that's part of the point if I understand correctly). Since that PR seems not very close to be merged my thinking is that we should go for this changer in the output writer naming convention. What do you think?

@glwagner
Copy link
Member

#3793 is probably 30 minutes of work from completion, don't you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants