Repository name may need some consideration

[cdata]

As of #4 there will no longer be a thing called carbon-router. Should this repository continue to be called carbon-router? Should carbon-route, carbon-route-converter and carbon-location live together or in separate repositories?

[rictic]

Good point. You know, the fact that we don't have a single router element is actually representative of the philosophy of these elements. There's no router, but there are routes and elements that match those routes, extract data, and dispatch responsibility for portions of the path.

[rictic]

So my vote is that this repo be named carbon-route, and all three elements live together in this repo.

What's the argument for separate repos? Smaller payload for users that use them separately? Separate release processes?

[cdata]

It's a combination of small payload, and grouping by "component." I think it's sufficient to say that if a set of things are always used in conjunction with each other no matter what, that constitutes a component. Also, the parts of a component should all be in the same product line...? :)

[rictic]

Following some more discussion we agreed on carbon-route for all three elements in this repo. Renamed!