GitHub user Xuanwo created a discussion: Proposal: Rename OpenDAL File System to YinYang
The `opendal-ofs` repository is being redesigned as a cross-platform filesystem foundation with two independent choices: `Direct` or `Managed` volumes, accessed through `Mount` or `Sync`. Before the redesigned runtime establishes new user-facing names, I would like to propose renaming the software product from **Apache OpenDAL File System** (`ofs`) to **Apache OpenDAL YinYang** (`YinYang`). ## Why YinYang? Data exists in two complementary states: - **Yin** is data at rest: persistence, durable identity, versions, and history. - **Yang** is data in motion: mounting, synchronization, replication, and circulation. - **YinYang** preserves the identity and consistency of the same data across both states. The proposed tagline is: > **YinYang — At rest. In motion. As one.** > > **静而存，动而流，合而为一。** This interpretation does not introduce new architecture modes. `Direct`/`Managed` and `Mount`/`Sync` remain the complete user-facing model. YinYang is the product identity that connects those capabilities. ## Proposed naming - Product: **Apache OpenDAL YinYang** - Short name: **YinYang** - Cargo package and Rust crate: `yinyang` - Command-line executable: `yy` - Proposed repository: `apache/opendal-yinyang` For example: ```shell yy volume create workspace yy mount workspace /mnt/workspace yy sync workspace ./workspace ``` ## Why now? The `main` branch is currently a buildable scaffold without a runtime API or mount command. The previous implementation is preserved on the `backup` branch. Renaming before the redesigned runtime is released avoids introducing new public APIs, configuration namespaces, and documentation under a temporary name. Existing `ofs` releases and their historical documentation would remain unchanged. The repository, RFCs, package metadata, examples, and future runtime would move together only after the community reaches consensus. ## Feedback requested I would especially like feedback on: - whether YinYang communicates the relationship between durable data and data movement; - whether the name or its cultural interpretation raises concerns; - whether `yy` is a suitable command name; - what compatibility expectations existing `ofs` users would have. This discussion is exploratory. If the community supports the direction, we would follow the Apache naming process and handle the concrete rename in separately reviewed changes. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/opendal-ofs/discussions/27 ---- This is an automatically sent email for [email protected]. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]
