chore!: Rename library to bitcoind_client

[tvpeter]

Description

This PR renames the library from bdk_bitcoind_client to bitcoind_client.

Fixes #52

Changelog notice

• Rename library from bdk_bitcoind_client to bitcoind_client

Checklists

All Submissions:

• I've signed all my commits
• I ran just pre-push before committing
• I followed the contribution guidelines

Bugfixes:

• This pull request breaks the existing API
• I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR

[luisschwab]

NACK. I think the bdk_ prefix makes complete sense, as it communicates that this client is custom built for BDK and that other use cases/features are not supported.

[tvpeter]

@evanlinjin I just checked, and this name is already taken.

[evanlinjin]

NACK. I think the bdk_ prefix makes complete sense, as it communicates that this client is custom built for BDK and that other use cases/features are not supported.

I think we are going in circles here. If this is the case, it should be a submodule of bdk_bitcoind_rpc and not a public crate as we don't need this anywhere else.

The whole point of making a public crate is - for the public. bitcoind_rpc_client is also a fitting name.

@ValuedMammal's take (Discord):

"The naming is mostly a non-issue in my opinion, in fact the "bdk_" prefix already tells you it's designed for BDK."

Well functionally, it's the same as electrum_client and esplora_client (but for bitcoind rpc). We should name crates based on the function and convention.

[luisschwab]

Well functionally, it's the same as electrum_client and esplora_client (but for bitcoind rpc). We should name crates based on the function and convention.

That doesn't hold, because esplora-client implements the whole Esplora API and not just what bdk_esplora needs. I'm not sure if electrum-client implements the whole Electrum API, but it probably also implements a superset of what bdk_electrum needs.

@evanlinjin I just checked, and this name is already taken.

@ValuedMammal owns bitcoind_client.

[evanlinjin]

That doesn't hold, because esplora-client implements the whole Esplora API and not just what bdk_esplora needs. I'm not sure if electrum-client implements the whole Electrum API, but it probably also implements a superset of what bdk_electrum needs.

Practically, it's an incomplete client crate, so it's still a client crate and purely looking at what the crate provides, nothing about it is "BDK" except the docs.

However, this is a minor sub-point, whereas my main arguments are not addressed which I would like to get some engagement on. Let me restate my arguments again.

• The fact that it's a public crate already conveys that it's meant to be used by the public.

• This crate (currently) is meant to be used only by bdk_bitcoind_rpc so it should be a submodule there.

• However, this crate can be genuinely useful. In which case, it SHOULD be a public crate and drop the bdk_ prefix.

• By convention, we have never named client crates with a bdk_ prefix. I don't think it's a good idea to name a pure client crate like a BDK chain source crate.