Add a short description in README

[tkf]

No description provided.

[pfitzseb]

The frontend/backend distinction is somewhat problematic imho: ProgressLogging is a frontend for the package author (because it is what they immediately interact with) but a backend for the user (who directly interacts with Juno/ProgressMeterLogging).

Looks good otherwise.

[aviatesk]

yep I had that impression too. Maybe "wrappper", "API interface" or some similar word would fit into this ?

[tkf]

I agree the terminology can be better. Here is some brainstorming:

For progress bar "frontend":

• progress event source
• progress data source
• progress recorder
• progress definition
• progress logger [1]
• progress (event/record/log) emitter

For progress bar "backend":

• progress monitor
• progress display [2]
• progress viewer
• progress (event/record/log) handler

Notes:

[1] "progress logger" as a frontend kind of makes sense but it's the backend that defines *Logger <: AbstractLogger type (and the handler method handle_message). So it may be confusing.

[2] "progress display" may be slightly confusing as we have the display stack with (somewhat) similar pluggable architecture.

Overall, I think "progress event source" and "progress monitor" sound good.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #4 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master       #4   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.39%   89.39%           
=======================================
  Files           1        1           
  Lines          66       66           
=======================================
  Hits           59       59           
  Misses          7        7

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ProgressLogging.jl	89.39% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6b2d3f4...738e04f. Read the comment docs.

[tkf]

Actually, I think we can just say

ProgressLogging.jl is a package for defining progress logs.

I think we can call the loop using @progress etc. a progress log source but probably we don't need this term.

This makes me think that it's probably better to rename ProgressMeterLogging.jl to ConsoleProgressMonitor.jl. What do you think?

[pfitzseb]

ProgressLogging.jl is a package for defining progress logs.

Yeah, that sounds good.

This makes me think that it's probably better to rename ProgressMeterLogging.jl to ConsoleProgressMonitor.jl. What do you think?

TerminalProgressMonitor.jl maybe? Seems like a good name either way though.

[tkf]

OK, I renamed and re-released tkf/ConsoleProgressMonitor.jl#2 (TerminalProgressMonitor.jl sounds good too but I thought matching with Logging.ConsoleLogger might make sense)

This PR should be good to go now (after passing the CI).

[pfitzseb]

Awesome, thanks!