Rename the ISablierV2 interface

[andreivladbrg]

In this PR #271 I suggested to rename the ISablierV2 interface to ISablierV2Administrative with the idea that in the future we will have multiple products (LockUp, Payroll) and would be better to create then a common interface, ISablierV2, for both of them.

The options I suggest are:

• ISablierV2Administrative
• ISablierV2AdminActions

What do you think, do you have better ideas?

[maxdesalle]

Wouldn't ISablierV2Admin be better in that case? It's easier to pronounce, and has the same meaning.

[PaulRBerg]

Admin makes one think that this is the governance contract itself, where votes are cast, and whatnot. Even if we don't end up using this name in any of our governance system contracts, I would like us not to give a false impression.

I would like the name of this contract to refer to the modality of being governed, and to this end I have given a few suggestions below.

[PaulRBerg]

Summoning our thesaurus master, @razgraf, into the conversation.

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks for creating this discussion, @andreivladbrg.

I agree with your proposal to change the name of the interface, though for a different reason. The ISablierV2 name is so simplistic that it could easily mislead GitHub visitors into thinking that that is the actual protocol API. In V1, there was only ISablier and Sablier, so our early adopters may think that just by adding the V2 suffix, they will also get the protocol functions.

It's also a mater of aesthetics - I would rather reserve the ISablierV2 name for something more end-user-related - but as you say, Andrei, we will only be able to do this once we implement future V2 contracts.

ISablierV2Administrative is not bad, but I would also like to throw the following ideas around:

• ISablierV2Administrable
• ISablierV2Config
• ISablierV2Configurable
• ISablierV2Governable

[andreivladbrg]

I think the ISablierV2Governable is just misleading, people would think that there is a governance system behind.

I like these two: ISablierV2Config ISablierV2Configurable

[PaulRBerg]

I don't think that "Governable" is that misleading, because there is actually a governance system, it's just not decentralized at the beginning - i.e., the governance is a multisig controlled by us. However, "Governance" isn't a great choice for the reasons given here.

I also like ISablierV2Config and ISablierV2Configurable better.

[razgraf]

The ISablierV2 name is so simplistic that it could easily mislead GitHub visitors into thinking that that is the actual protocol API.

True. As I see it, this interface doesn't even define very specific "Sablier" features, but rules for our core functionality-driven contracts. I think it should have the "Sablier" particle in it, for the actual contract we're gonna deploy but additional context is necessary.

ISablierV2Governable

This one is tricky, I'd leave the "Governance" part out all together, so we don't have a hard time naming things if/when we eventually introduce Governance contracts.

---

How about something less formal like ISablierWarden. This are inspired from Yield as they seem to be using names such as Witch or Cauldron.

Does it have to abide by a certain shape e.g. "xyz-able" as in "Adminable"? What are the constraints?

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks, @razgraf. Agree with all the points I didn't reply to.

How about something less formal like ISablierWarden

I am not against this style of terminology, but I don't think that "warden" is a good fit in this context.

What are the constraints?

No hard-and-fast rules! We're just brainstorming.

[PaulRBerg]

I have gone with SablierV2Config and implemented the change in PR #292.

[PaulRBerg]

Locking, implemented in #292.

[PaulRBerg]

For future reference: what used to be called SablierV2Config in this discussion is now called SablierV2Base:

• Renaming `SablierV2Config` to `SablierV2Base` #370
• https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/blob/ea5110df0167a42595bdc7e3e3a6c649bc8f4e9c/src/abstracts/SablierV2Base.sol