Rename objects

[cdrage]

Within file-reference.md we have different names for different objects.

For example: http://kedgeproject.org/file-reference/#containerspec

We have containerSpec, service and then.... routeObject.

Names should be consistent.

Either:

containerSpec, serviceSpec, routeSpec

or

containerObject, serviceObject, routeObject

👍 for Object.

[cdrage]

Thoughts @kadel @pradeepto

[pradeepto]

Good catch. We should be consistent with our object naming. This is definitely an UX issue.

[kadel]

There is a difference between routeObject and routeSpec

routeObject refers to Kedge struct that includes OpenShift's routeSpec and objectMeta
https://github.com/kedgeproject/kedge/blob/master/pkg/spec/types.go#L78

[cdrage]

@kadel Problem is that most people won't be looking at the code-names, but rather the documentation names. Could we refer to it as a routeSpecObject instead within the documentation?

Are you good with the other parts being renamed (containerObject, serviceObject, etc..)

[kadel]

We should distinguish between what is referring to our RouteSpecMod and what is referring upstream RouteSpec. We have to careful and not to interchange them. It can have whatever name but we just can't interchange them.

[cdrage]

Hmm. so in the docs, let's go with routeSpecObject? @kadel

[kadel]

You are talking about what will be in the sidebar in Objects section, right?

I would actually go with just 'route' and 'ingress'

[cdrage]

PR here: #429