Rename CHIPConnection to CHIPUdpExchange

[andy31415]

Reasoning is that UDP is connectionless, so we use "exchange" to denote
exchanging messages.

Future CHIPConnection will actually handle connection protocols (tcp,
ble).

Problem

Short version is "UDP is connectionless".
We are considering that several transports including UDP, TCP, BLE, ... are ok for exchanging requests and replies between devices, however a "connection" has additional meaning.

Summary of Changes

Renames existing CHIPConnection to ChipUdpExchange.
Weave port of CHIPConnection does the connection bit (TCP and BLE) and will not replace this class. The weave message layer does support UDP however that will only come in once we have the exchange bits ported. Only at that time, an code merge & update can be feasable.

working towards #157 and #158.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #711 into master will increase coverage by 5.72%.
The diff coverage is 52.53%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #711      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.93%   59.66%   +5.72%     
==========================================
  Files         135      130       -5     
  Lines       13654    12650    -1004     
==========================================
+ Hits         7364     7547     +183     
+ Misses       6290     5103    -1187     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ble/BLEEndPoint.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ble/BleError.cpp	99.04% <ø> (+99.04%)	⬆️
src/ble/BleLayer.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ble/BtpEngine.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ble/BtpEngine.h	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/controller/CHIPDeviceController.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/crypto/CHIPCryptoPALOpenSSL.cpp	97.83% <ø> (ø)
src/crypto/CHIPOpenSSL.c	96.65% <ø> (ø)
src/inet/AsyncDNSResolverSockets.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/inet/DNSResolver.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 85 more

---

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 96cde96...11dc03d. Read the comment docs.

[gerickson]

Seems innocuous if it supports a larger, later goal.

[sagar-apple]

Rename CHIPConnection to CHIPUdpExchange.h

Nit: the PR title doesn't need to specify the .h

[sagar-apple]

LGTM!

@andy31415, how do you feel about filing an issue for this. Just so we never forget to come back and clean/reorg ChipUdpExchange. Maybe when Message Layer comes in this becomes obsolete ?

[woody-apple]

I thought per discussion we'd do this when the CHIPConnection + Managers above are in place, that would replace this?

Let's do this as a part of: #157

[andy31415]

I thought per discussion we'd do this when the CHIPConnection + Managers above are in place, that would replace this?

Let's do this as a part of: #157

I am trying to make deltas smaller. This rename can for sure be part of a WML move, however it seems that renaming is very self-contained so I figured we can approve separately.

Please LMK what to do with this - there are a few approvals here, however I would only like to submit when there are no outstanding comments.

[woody-apple]

I thought per discussion we'd do this when the CHIPConnection + Managers above are in place, that would replace this?
Let's do this as a part of: #157

I am trying to make deltas smaller. This rename can for sure be part of a WML move, however it seems that renaming is very self-contained so I figured we can approve separately.

Please LMK what to do with this - there are a few approvals here, however I would only like to submit when there are no outstanding comments.

Can we do this as part of the other discussion draft PR? I think this helps bring context to that change.

@andy31415

[andy31415]

I thought per discussion we'd do this when the CHIPConnection + Managers above are in place, that would replace this?
Let's do this as a part of: #157

I am trying to make deltas smaller. This rename can for sure be part of a WML move, however it seems that renaming is very self-contained so I figured we can approve separately.
Please LMK what to do with this - there are a few approvals here, however I would only like to submit when there are no outstanding comments.

Can we do this as part of the other discussion draft PR? I think this helps bring context to that change.

@andy31415

I created a wholesale PR with the entire message layer in #756

It is huge and I am still unclear what was agreed upon regardig the messaging layer. I get conflicting information. What would be the best way forward?

[andy31415]

Closing as we will move these into the transpor layer instead. I will rename them in that context.