rename symbols

[Maria Matejka]

On 24 January 2023 07:54:23 CET, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 07:44:47AM +0100, Maria Matejka wrote:
>> >Hello
>> >
>> >I thing that the most elegant way how to handle renaming of objects
>> >during reconfiguration is to allow multiple names / aliases. There could
>> >be be more symbols pointing to given object (but the object points back
>> >to its primary name).
>> >
>> >Reconfiguration to rename objects could be done in two steps - in the
>> >first step, the user would add alias for the new name.  In the second step,
>> >the old name would be removed.
>> 
>> I think this keeps the problem with protocol restart when the renaming
>> of "base name" is done.
>
>The primary problem of renaming is matching existing objects with
>definitions from the new config. If that can be done (by finding
>existing objects through aliases), it is just a reconfiguration of
>object property, like any other. I.e. implementation problem instead
>of conceptual problem.

Well… yes, it is more of an implementation problem, yet in v3 I considered this more of an invariant. It can be done, though, I'm just kind of lazy to check all the places where I put the protocol / table name like memory pool names or IO loop names… and implement renaming of these.

Maria