Major Package/Type Re-naming

[Carter12s]

I think we need to do a top-level renaming of the creates, features, Node implementations, etc. This will be a major breaking change for users so I want to get it right this time and not touch it.

Rename the sub-crates, features, and modules as:

• roslibrust_ros1 => roslibrust_ros1_tcpros
• roslibrust_zenoh => roslibrust_ros1_zenoh
• roslibrust_ros2 => rosliburst_ros2_zenoh

I'm considering this renaming, but want other folks to weigh in:

All the crates have "NodeHandle" of some kind, but all with different names: [MockRos, ZenohClient, ClientHandle, etc.]. I propose re-naming all of these to be NodeHandle in their respective crate instead of having unique name. I think previously I was resistant to this as it makes navigating the repository harder, but I think to end-users will find it more logical if they all have a common name?

If we do this we should also re-name Subscriber, Publisher, ServiceServer, and ServiceClient to be consistently named across all the backends as well.

[Carter12s]

@ssnover / @lucasw / @ShahhhVihaan

Any of you have thoughts about whether the various backends should have consistent names, or unique names for their corresponding components?

[Carter12s]

Note: For roslibrust_ros1 and roslibrust_zenoh we'll want to push a version of them that changes their documentation to indicate "THIS CRATE HAS BEEN RENAMED" and add links direction to the new names. That way if people discover them via crates.io or docs.rs they end up in the right place.

[ssnover]

I think renaming the crates would be pretty disruptive. It would make it harder to find differences over time on docs.rs since the drop down will have a cut off point and I'd bet a number of users would not notice and never update to the new crate versions. I think it should be avoided at all costs. If someone is unclear on of their particular transport or ROS version is supported, they're more likely to go check documentation (and maybe be annoyed at our naming but oh well).