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

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

      SGIP-PAP09 Gerry Gray

    • Hide

      Sections entirely re-written

      Show
      Sections entirely re-written

      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 .

            Assignee:
            Toby Considine (Inactive)
            Reporter:
            Toby Considine (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: