Rename StorageDispatcher to StorageArbiter

After reading the wikipedia link I'm not convinced about the term arbiter as the article seems to suggest that an arbiter about allocating access to a shared resource. So the arbitration is happening to inputs.

In the case of the StorageDispatcher this isn't what we're doing. We have one input - a request to create, read, update or delete config - and we are choosing which shared resource to use. At the moment this choice is between Database or File. It is quite possible that we will end up with more shared resources and it is also possible that we end doing the same CRUD action on multiple shared resources for the same request.

Not to put words in @Merlinofchaos's mouth (he came up with the StorageDispatcher name) but I think this is why the Dispatcher name is valid. It receives a request to do something for a config object and then it dispatches the request to the correct StorageInterface(s).

Reading #1 (but having no knowledge about ther internals), dispatcher sounds ok. It *sounds* like a facade or controller pattern.

A man needs but a name.

I'd rather focus on fixing the design before worrying about the colour. But, now that #1605324: Configuration system cleanup and rearchitecture has been committed, we can talk about the colour and #1624580: Research and implement a proper design for StorageDispatcher.

#1624580: Research and implement a proper design for StorageDispatcher exists for investigating whether we need it at all.

It's completely pointless to bikeshed on its name if it's not even clear whether it will stay.

Of course, feel free to waste your time here, but I'm certainly going to unfollow this issue.

Seems like at least we should postpone this on that other issue to figure out if we need it or not. Dries was also somewhat skeptical.

Too bad you're unfollowing, because if you were still following, I would note that there's no need for rude, condescending remarks like "feel free to waste your time" :P

StorageDispatcher is a thing of the past.