Better automatically generated controller names?

[metacosm]

Very often a controller class will be named SomethingController or SomethingResourceController. We could trim these names to remove the redundant Controller or ResourceController part so that they feel more natural when referring to the controller in configuration files. Another option would be to use the associated Custom Resource name / kind as the default name for the controller. /cc @adam-sandor @psycho-ir

[adam-sandor]

Hmm.. I don't know. The class itself would look weird without the suffix. And it may cause problems with naming the CR. For example I have a class Tomcat for the CR and related TomcatController.

[metacosm]

Hmm.. I don't know. The class itself would look weird without the suffix. And it may cause problems with naming the CR. For example I have a class Tomcat for the CR and related TomcatController.

The name of the class wouldn't change, just the name that is used to refer to the controller in the configuration. In the above example, your CR would still be Tomcat, your controller class would still be called TomcatController, however the default controller name would become tomcat instead of tomcatcontroller as it is now.

[adam-sandor]

Ah ok.. that's fine. Tbh I don't even know where we use controller names in configuration

[metacosm]

Ah ok.. that's fine. Tbh I don't even know where we use controller names in configuration

We don't really at the moment… 😄 but we should with #237. Note that most of the code is in place for this to work but it needs to be completed.

[s-soroosh]

To me, the controller name itself is more natural than doing any change by convention,
I don't like to think about removing the controller suffix if it's there but just using the class name itself if I decided to user another suffix like Manager or anything similar to that.
and given that a custom resource can have more than a controller I don't think it can be replaced by the resource name.

[metacosm]

and given that a custom resource can have more than a controller I don't think it can be replaced by the resource name.

More complex use cases might indeed run into that issue. Closing this then. Thanks for the input!