Rename Dnsimple.Record to Dnsimple.ZoneRecord

[aeden]

To match the go and ruby clients.

[jacegu]

In the Ruby client it is called Record too. However in the Go client it's called ZoneRecord.

@aeden @weppos @jodosha which one should we use?

[aeden]

My understanding is @weppos is considering the Go client to be the reference implementation, but he'll need to confirm.

[weppos]

It was originally called Record in the Go client as well, but it was renamed as part of the shift to V2. I should have renamed the Ruby client as well (actually I believe we talked about that and I assumed it was done).

Both the Ruby and the Go client are kind of reference, but the Go one is generally a little bit more accurate as it's the one I've been spending most time on and was almost rewritten from 0. Moreover, Go is a more strict language, and some decisions were influenced by the Go client because it was the hardest to please so far.

I vote to rename both the Ruby and Elixir client to ZoneRecord.

[weppos]

PS. Here's the relevant commit dnsimple/dnsimple-go@ef7339c

[jacegu]

Does that mean that we should have a different data structure (or object) for records in other contexts (e.g templates) ?

EDIT: looks like that's the followed approach Ruby client: https://github.com/aetrion/dnsimple-ruby/blob/master/lib/dnsimple/struct/template_record.rb

[weppos]

Does that mean that we should have a different data structure (or object) for records in other contexts (e.g templates) ?

That's correct, it has always been like this. We always had Record vs TemplateRecord (which was one of the reason why I wanted to be more explicit on the name).