Should we find a new name for the create function?

[andreivladbrg]

Context

In v2-core the create functions are called:

• LockupLinear
  • createWithDurations
  • createWithRange
• LockupDynamic
  • createWithDeltas
  • createWithMilestones

In the OpenEnded conctract atm we have only one create function which is named simply "create".

Since additional logic for this contract will need to be added to the periphery, it's likely that we'll share the same periphery between v2-core and v2-open-ended. And we would have only one Batch contract.

Question: wouldn't it be confusing to have a function simply called create there?

For context, the functions are called like this:

// for lockup
batch.createWithDurations(lockupLinear, asset, params);
batch.createWithRange(lockupLinear, asset, params);
batch.createWithDeltas(lockupDynamic, asset, params);
batch.createWithMilestones(lockupDynamic, asset, params);
// for open-ended
batch.create(openEnded, assset, params);

Atm, I don't have suggestions, will come later here if any good idea comes to mind

[IaroslavMazur]

it's likely that we'll share the same periphery between v2-core and v2-open-ended. And we would have only one Batch contract.

What are the pros of doing things this way vs having the v2-core and v2-open-ended peripheries separate?

---

// for lockup
batch.createWithDurations(lockupLinear, asset, params);
batch.createWithRange(lockupLinear, asset, params);
batch.createWithDeltas(lockupDynamic, asset, params);
batch.createWithMilestones(lockupDynamic, asset, params);
// for open-ended
batch.create(openEnded, assset, params);

Given that there will be a single, joint periphery, the smallest viable change enough to suggestively distinguish between the v2-core and v2-open-ended create functions would be to transform batch.create(openEnded, assset, params); into smth like batch.createOpenEnded(openEnded, assset, params);

However, I'd, rather, suggest incorporating some sort of organization into the function naming, such that each function clearly references the Stream type it's capable of creating (v2-core or v2-open-ended).

---

Side note: should we, maybe, refer to the v2-core Streams as Lockup or close-ended, to contrast the open-ended ones?

[andreivladbrg]

What are the pros of doing things this way vs having the v2-core and v2-open-ended peripheries separate?

Need to think about it, might be better to add in this project a periphery dir inside src

[smol-ninja]

Given that,

1. We have standardised create function names in lockup contracts with createWithDurations and createWithTimestamps
2. We have decided to keep OE periphery in the OE repo itself

This discussion is no longer required, and I do not see a problem with create anymore. cc @andreivladbrg what do you think?

[andreivladbrg]

Yes, you are right, this discussion is no longer required