clarify service vs. extension

[butonic]

When going over the dev docs @mmattel noticed that I was referring to ocdav as a service, whereas most places use the term extension. Even the folder containing all ocis extensions / services is called extensions. But what are we extending? The ocis platform? Currently, the ocis extensions provide the core functionality of ocis. There is a difference between these core extensions and actual extensions like a calender or contacts extension.

@C0rby pointed out that all extensions we currently have are actually not really extensions, but services that make up the ocis platform.

While we could keep calling all ocis services extensions it would be clearer to call them ocis services. That would allow distinguishing them from ocis extensions which extend the ocis platform that in turn consists of at least the set of ocis services.

Would that mean we rename the extensions folder to services?

@micbar @dragotin @dragonchaser @C0rby @kobergj @owncloud/pm thoughts?

[mmattel]

Any clearance we make now, will avoid confusion and creative/challenging "explanations" later on.

[dragonchaser]

Renaming extensions => services makes sense to me, in the future we could add a new extensions directory where we pin third-party extensions we want to bundle using git sub-modules.

[C0rby]

I support renaming extensions to services.

[dragotin]

So far, AFAIK we only have services that are bundled by default and make the functionality of oCIS. Extensions are optional for me, and could be maintained elsewhere as @dragonchaser says.

So I support the rename as well.

[pmaier1]

I agree with the arguments in the OP and support the rename as well.