Renaming `devices` For Clearer Categories

Hey everyone! Let's dive into a quick but important discussion about refining our category naming conventions. Specifically, we're looking at the term devices and whether a change could make things more intuitive for everyone. While devices works perfectly fine when we're talking about controlling remote hardware drivers – that's its sweet spot, no doubt – it doesn't quite hit the mark for all the other scenarios where we use it. Think about it: when you're not directly managing a piece of hardware, does devices feel like the best fit? It’s a simple keyword, and a quick find-and-replace operation can update it across the board, but before we commit to a change, let's hash out the best new name together.

Exploring the Alternatives: targets vs. objects?

So, what are our contenders? We've put forward two potential replacements: targets and objects. Both have their merits, and understanding their nuances will help us pick the one that truly represents the breadth of our use cases. Let's break them down.

Why targets Might Be the One

Consider the keyword targets. This term implies something that is being aimed at, acted upon, or directed towards. In many of our non-hardware-driver contexts, this aligns beautifully. For instance, if you're configuring a specific setting, processing a particular data stream, or interacting with a named entity within a system, you are essentially targeting that entity. The word targets carries a sense of purpose and direction. It suggests that we are focusing our actions or configurations on specific points or components. If we are setting up a notification system, the targets might be the users or groups who receive alerts. If we are implementing a new feature, the targets might be the specific modules or services that need to be updated. This term feels active and descriptive, highlighting the what we are interacting with or modifying. It moves away from the purely physical connotation of devices and embraces a more abstract, functional understanding. When you think about AllenNeuralDynamics and its associated parameters, the targets could be the specific neural pathways or stimulation points you are aiming to influence. This aligns with the idea of directing an effort or a process. The targets are the endpoints of our operations, the entities that receive the effects of our code or configurations. This implies a clear relationship between the actor (the code or the user) and the acted-upon entity. It’s a term that suggests intent and focus, which is often the case when we’re defining configurations or performing actions within a system. It’s less about the physical form and more about the functional role an entity plays in our operations. This flexibility makes targets a strong candidate for a more universal term that can encompass a wider range of applications beyond just physical hardware.

The Case for objects

On the other hand, we have objects. This term is broad and encompasses almost anything that can be named or referenced within a system. It’s a very general term, which can be both a strength and a weakness. In object-oriented programming, objects are fundamental. If our context is heavily influenced by OOP principles, objects might feel natural. When we define something like my_horn in the example `RouterServer(devices={