🚸 Confusing name choice: lamin_connect() and connect()

[falexwolf]

Apologies that this slipped for me before.

How about renaming what's called laminr::lamin_connect() to laminr::connect_default() or laminr::set_default_db() or laminr::set_default_instance() (in a backward compatible way)?

Otherwise the direct sequence of laminr::lamin_connect() and laminr::connect() is somewhat confusing, because they're both performing "lamin connect".

Or alternatively, eliminating laminr::lamin_connect() from the API and instead have a flag set_as_default = False in laminr::connect()?

Among the 5 designs here, I believe I'd like laminr::connect_default() the most.

[lazappi]

I named the functions that way to match the CLI commands so lamin_connect() is equivalent to lamin connect and lamin_login() is equivalent to lamin login. I figured it was good to keep the names the same because the functions are just wrappers around the CLI calls. When can rename it if you like but then we lose that link.

The connect() function is quite different because it is making API calls rather than interacting with Python/CLI.

The overlap in names is unfortunate but I think it will be resolved when we move away from the API as I don't think we will need the connect() function then.

[falexwolf]

Got it, makes sense. Let's keep things this way for now.