App-modules-db not in synch with modules-db by default

[grtjn]

If you override modules-db, app-modules-db doesn't automatically change along. Was there a particular reason to want to keep the two distinct?

[dmcassel]

I don't have a good sense of why they are different.

[dmcassel]

I don't know why they are different. Worth exploring whether they can merged.

[grtjn]

Maybe related to rest-port stuff, but don't have a good sense on what that is supposed to do exactly. Do you recall?

[RobertSzkutak]

Did a deep review of the code...

Looks like modules-db is used for creating the modules database and the forest attached to it. app-modules-db is used for everything else. My best guess is that app-modules-db used to do something akin to what rest-modules-db is now used for.

My proposal would be to get rid of modules-db and use app-modules-db going forward. I would also like to change content-db to app-content-db to be consistent with this naming convention.

Thoughts?

[dmcassel]

@RobertSzkutak I like the idea of merging -- we just had a question on Stack Overflow about why they are different. My counter-proposal: dump app-modules-db and keep modules-db. Keep content-db the same. Motivation:

• changing from content-db to app-content-db would be a bigger impact during upgrades
• modules-db/app-modules-db appears to get used as a default name when, say rest-modules-db or test-modules-db (etc) aren't present. I think "modules-db" does a good job of reflecting the generic nature of its use.

[RobertSzkutak]

@dmcassel That works for me! Motivation behind my earlier idea was simply that I thought the other convention was preferred since it was more widely used.