Wondering (speaking load) if we can decide that for configuration files we may skip to express the "file" type.
So the above samples may become:
```
config_path
config_source
config_template
config_options_hash
ksmtuned_config_options_hash
```
Keeping a general config for the "main" configuration file allows quicker cloning of modules and a parameter (the one referring to, probably, the most managed file of a module) always the same.


Referring to the above reply, on ex42 nextgen modules I followed a pattern more similar to the "keep it brief and not necessarily coherent" approach), names were like:
```
  $source              = params_lookup( 'source' ),
  $template            = params_lookup( 'template' ),
  $options             = params_lookup( 'options' ), # the options|config hash
  $source_dir          = params_lookup( 'source_dir' ),
  $source_dir_purge    = params_lookup( 'source_dir_purge' ),
  $config_dir          = params_lookup( 'config_dir' ),
  $config_file         = params_lookup( 'config_file' ),
  $config_file_mode    = params_lookup( 'config_file_mode' ),
  $config_file_owner   = params_lookup( 'config_file_owner' ),
  $config_file_group   = params_lookup( 'config_file_group' ),
  $pid_file            = params_lookup( 'pid_file' ),
  $data_dir            = params_lookup( 'data_dir' ),
  $log_dir             = params_lookup( 'log_dir' ),
  $log_file            = params_lookup( 'log_file' ),
  $package             = params_lookup( 'package' ),
  $service             = params_lookup( 'service' ),
  $service_status      = params_lookup( 'service_status' ),
  $process             = params_lookup( 'process' ),
``` 
simpler, maybe better looking, but definitively not coherent.