Re: Opinions on the naming of a new option?

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019, at 13:15, Daniel Stenberg via curl-users wrote:

> How should we name this new command line option? Jay and I have discussed it
> in the PR and the current list of alternatives include (in alphabetical
> order):
>
> --parallel-at-once
> --parallel-connect
> --parallel-directly
> --parallel-nowait
> --parallel-preferred
>
> I don't think any of them feels "perfect". Any better suggestions, ideas,
> thoughts, complaints?

What are other options that relate to parallel use named as?

Do some or all of them also have "parallel-" at the start?

Eg if whatever sets the maximum number of connections is called eg

  max-par-cons

then the way one might frame the name of the new option is (to my
mind) different from if it is eg parallel-max-cons.

I dislike "-directly" because to me it sort-of implies a routeing thing
rather than a speed/waiting issue. All the others feel as if there should
be a middle part: parallel-xxxx-at-once | parallel-xxxx-connect etc saying
what it is that's to be done at once etc.

Maybe "secondary" (or eg "secy") needs to be in there? You could argue
that there's no need because "parallel" is only special once secondary
transfers are involved.

Maybe that makes a case for parallel use being turned on NOT by a
meaningless-name option -Z.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-users
Etiquette:   https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html