Application Manager - Package API - naming clashes

User reported following possible naming clashes:
"
The Package API name clashes with Qt Quick Package (using in Delegate Models) and also the keyword "package" is reserved. The use of the term "package" vs "packageObject" and the type "Package" seems inconsistently used throughout the API and/or documentation.

In the attached image - we can see that it is currently impossible to get the PackageObject role from the PackageManager model. This is sincerely a problem and why I bring it to your attention.

I note that there are sub-optimal ways to get the PackageObject from the PackageManager using its .get() method, but the role API should work and cannot.

Likewise: the use of the term "application" vs "intentObject" and the type "Application" seems inconsistently used throughout the API and/or documentation.

That there can even be such naming inconsistencies is another side-effect of the non-Qt6 architecture and type registration mechanism used in Qt Application Manager and why I am requesting strongly that the whole type registration and overall library architecture needs to be severely looked at.

PackageObject.builtIn boolean property is not named consistently with the PackageManager.isRemovable boolean model role; the amount to the same indication so should be called the same.

Same applies to ApplicationManager/Model isRemovable role too.

... where ApplicationObject has .builtIn c.f. .isRemovable in the same inconsistent way as PackageXXX
"