Find better decorator names

[ooflorent]

I liked previous decorator. While container is acceptable, root is too broad.
Maybe you (@gaearon) could rename root to provides or something similar.
Any thoughts?

[gaearon]

Provider / Container?

[gaearon]

If the issue is it looking weird in the App file, you can alias the import:

import { root as reduxRoot } from 'redux';

root kinda makes sense in the context of Redux. I want to make it clear there's a single root in most applications, and that stores wouldn't work across different roots. Maybe it's obvious though.

[gaearon]

Let's rename <Root> (@root) to <Dispatcher> (@dispatcher).
Keep <Container> and @container.

Deal?

[ooflorent]

I like naming my decorators as verbs, similarly to what you did with @performs or @provides.
But Dispatcher and dispatcher are ok.

[gaearon]

Yeah.. I like verb decorators. But then I want them to map 1:1 to the components. And components as verbs seem bizarre.

[ooflorent]

While I agree on keeping noun for components, I think it is acceptable to
have decorators that are not 1:1.

Florent Cailhol

[gaearon]

More bikeshedding:

• <Dispatcher>, @dispatcher; <Controller>, @controller
• <Dispatcher>, @dispatch; <Controller>, @control
• <Dispatcher>, @dispatcher; <Injector>, @injector
• <Dispatcher>, @dispatch; <Injector>, @inject

Anything that you like?

[ooflorent]

I really like @dispatch and @inject

[bsansouci]

I second @ooflorent on this one. Inject seems to describe more what's happening under the hood than control is.

[gaearon]

What about <Provider>, @provide?
I like @inject but not very fond of <Injector>..

[gaearon]

Out in 0.7.0.