Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS Energy Interoperation TC'
  1. OASIS Energy Interoperation TC
  2. ENERGYINTEROP-73

717 - General thought. Did you have a standard naming convention for the service names.?

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: wd12
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: spec
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:

      SGIP-PAP09 Gerry Gray

    • Resolution:
      Hide

      Sections entirely re-written

      Show
      Sections entirely re-written

      Description

      Some examples at the end of previous section. Looking at the service names - found in service def team and why we created a naming convention. In a NS expectation on what developers will see. And if extend the work done, create a framework in which they can add to an additional version. Not saying right/wrong - use CIM as model for the verbs. Like Create, Created, Send, Receive, Execute, and info object in response to a request. The other way - some names imply ESB which may not be applicable. For example, another way to do service name is follow the information name being used. Say DR event, inside a svc have operations and operation names. Initiate, cancel, modify inside the service names. Pattern for how design the WSDLs down the road. Use of verb "Modify" and "Update" - those two words are synonymous. Probably need consistent .

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              toby.considine Toby Considine (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              toby.considine Toby Considine (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: