> I'm not sure it will have a big impact for this use-case though,
> because using the new name would require polyfilling it, so I'd expect
> people would stick to the old name in the foreseeable future...
Not necessarily - it depends what versions you need to support, and what
your migration strategy is.
Since it's just a deprecation notice initially, you could support 8.1
and 8.2 on the same code base with no changes at all - that's what
deprecation notices are for, to give a lead time before changes are
Once the code base no longer needed to support 8.1, "extends
DynamicObject" could be added. For many code bases, that will be long
before the feature is actually removed - for a private project, maybe as
soon as it's on 8.2 in production.