"environment" vs "model" in the code

[Ian Booth]

On 15/01/16 10:16, Menno Smits wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We've committed to renaming "environment" to "model" in Juju's CLI and API
> but what do we want to do in Juju's internals? I'm currently adding
> significant new model/environment related functionality to the state
> package which includes adding new database collections, structs and
> functions which could include either "env/environment" or "model" in their
> names.
> 
> One approach could be that we only use the word "model" at the edges - the
> CLI, API and GUI - and continue to use "environment" internally. That way
> the naming of environment related things in most of Juju's code and
> database stays consistent.
> 
> Another approach is to use "model" for new work[1] with a hope that it'll
> eventually become the dominant name for the concept. This will however
> result in a long period of widespread inconsistency, and it's unlikely that
> things we'll ever completely get rid of all uses of "environment".
> 
> I think we need arrive at some sort of consensus on the way to tackle this.
> FWIW, I prefer the former approach. Having good, consistent names for
> things is important[2].
>

Using "model" for new work is the correct approach - new chunks of work will be
internally consistent with the use of their terminology. And we will be looking
to migrate existing internal code once we tackle the external facing stuff for
2.0. We don't want to add to our tech debt and make our future selves sad by
introducing obsoleted terminology for new work.