[aspnet5] Rename/deprecate aspnet5 for newer terminology

[jimschubert]

Description

Per Scott Hanselman's blog post, the server technology's name is no longer called ASP.NET 5 and is now called ASP.NET Core 1.0.

Rather than rename to aspnetcore or some variant, it would probably be best to create an aspnet server generator with library options for different versions (4.x, Core 1.0, Web Forms, etc.).

Swagger-codegen version

2.1.6

Swagger declaration file content or url

AspNet5ServerCodegen.java

Command line used for generation

N/A

Steps to reproduce

List languages, notice aspnet5:

swagger-codegen langs | tr -s " " "\n" | grep asp

Related issues

N/A

Suggest a Fix

Not sure how to 'deprecate' a language in favor of another. Maybe:

• Rename AspNet5ServerCodegen to AspNetCoreCodegen
• Set server language name in AspNetServerCodegen to aspnet
• Create AspNet5ServerCodegen and extend from AspNetServerCodegen
• Set server language name in AspNet5ServerCodegen to current aspnet5
• Add AspNetServerCodegen to META-INF\services definition
• Log a warning message in the constructor of AspNetServerCodegen, or otherwise indicate deprecation

[wing328]

@jimschubert thanks for the details.

Do you think there's by any chance they will switch to a different (maybe better) name later? I suggest we wait and see as IMO renaming the generator is not something with the highest priority.

[jimschubert]

@wing328 It's possible they'll change it. I feel like the Microsoft community sometimes does things to appear edgy or cool. For all we know, they could rage-quit open source .NET ;D

But seriously, they're pushing for a June 27 1.0 release. (source). I doubt they'll change it this close to version 1.0 release.

edit: Also Scott's blog post was from January.

[jimschubert]

@wing328 is this closed as won't fix?

[wing328]

(reopened the issue)

I suggest we keep it as it's for now. If we get more feedback from developers about renaming the generator to something, then we'll revisit this again.

[jimschubert]

@wing328

@stunney brought it up in the referenced #2886. I assume most people wouldn't bring it up continually since the discussion is already addressed by this issue.