rename rash?

[shishi]

Hashie now have own Hashie::Rash.
https://github.com/intridea/hashie/blob/master/lib/hashie/rash.rb

So, I think rash have to rename other name. Or, we can not use rash with future version Hashie...
But Faraday Middleware use Rash, and there is already rash user.

It seem hashie rename their own rash is better?

[tcocca]

So, you are right, Hashie 2.1.0 added a Rash class. Any ideas for new names?

I think I will release a final minor version of Rash that has a hashie dependency of < 2.1.0

Then I will need to release a brand new gem with the new gem name.

Any thoughts?

[shishi]

Like suggested in lostisland/faraday_middleware#91, I suggest Rash into Hashie::Mash, not in Hashie. (Hashie::Mash::Rash)
I believe it express Rash inherit Mash, and is better than move namespace to global.

[pboling]

It has been discussed in the Hashie project to move all the classes, including Rash, to mixins instead, such that Hashie would simply be a library of composables. If they were to do that, then the namespace collision might be resolved, though that may also be a ways off in the future.

[dblock]

Rash is not going to be removed from Hashie and it serves a very different purpose (regexps). I've played with various options and I think the best short term idea is to rename Rash here to something else and call it a day. This way there would be a path forward for anyone using this gem.

More work would be to port the camelCase conversion as UnderscoreKeyExtension into Hashie and deprecate this gem altogether, telling people to use a different class (a hash with extensions).

[tcocca]

Hi guys, I'm not opposed to a rename, does anybody have any ideas? I can't remember the original reason I had called it rash but like @dblock said, they aren't removing it. Basically they whole point of my initial idea was to use underscored string names for hash keys instead of camel cased names when consuming the responses from APIs because I do not like typing things like 'keyName' and I like 'key_name' better.

So, basically, I have no problem porting the gem to a new name. Also, since it inherits from Mash, should we do it with a Hashie::Mash::{new name} scope? or still maintain Hashie::{new name}

I'm open to anything at this point.

[tcocca]

Also, my rash wouldn't be part of Hashie, that was pretty clear back when I originally made it hashie/hashie#7

[elyobo]

Keep the name Rash but use a different module name; the source of the problem was reusing the Hashie module name for your Rash in the first place. If you need to monkey patch something then you can't avoid that, but given that you're subclassing you don't need to do that and this is exactly the sort of problem that namespaces (modules in this case) are meant to avoid.

E.g. if you change to Tcocca::Rash instead then you won't have this problem again. Bump up a major version number so that people generally won't get caught out and it seems fine.

Edit: added example.