Spec could be more clear about named-client/provider binding. Would "namespace" help? about spec HOT 6 CLOSED

I agree that something other than name is good. I do have a bit of a concern about namespace/scope, which is when I hear namespace in this context I think of something like namespace:flagKey (routing:useV2).

Probably doesn't matter, as long as the non-normative text is illustrative enough.

from spec.

As long as we change the signature to api.getClient(String namespace), then it seems fine to me?

from spec.

As long as we change the signature to api.getClient(String namespace), then it seems fine to me?

Ya, I think we'd basically do that everywhere: name -> namespace as long as there's a general agreement this is actually an improvement.

from spec.

I think scope is also a good candidate. For example, a scoped client or a scoped provider where scope is a string . But I am also fine with namespace

from spec.

I agree that something other than name is good. I do have a bit of a concern about namespace/scope, which is when I hear namespace in this context I think of something like namespace:flagKey (routing:useV2).

hmm, I agree.

from spec.

Closing this for now. This seems to be well-enough understood.

from spec.