On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 23:49 -0400, Glen Daniels wrote: > > +1 to AxisContext (this was "EngineContext" originally). For the > "description" hierarchy, I'll suggest another alternative which I've > been meaning to bring up for a while: > > OperationDescription -> AxisOperation > ServiceDescription -> AxisService > ServiceGroupDescription -> ServiceGroup > AxisConfiguration stays the same
I'd prefer to maintain a consistent pattern if we're going to change to this: ConfigurationContext AxisConfiguration ServiceGroupContext AxisServiceGroup ServiceContext AxisService OperationContext AxisOperation MessageContext I actually prefer the names Eran proposed: AxisContext AxisDescription ServiceGroupContext ServiceGroupDescription ServiceContext ServiceDescription OperationContext OperationDescription MessageContext for the simple reason that they both the corresponding names at a given level start the same way and end differently. I know, such a deeply technical reason. > Second, these > are the names (except of course ServiceGroup) that we agreed to at the > first F2F. The change to *Description was voted on here IIRC .. may have been during your sleep period then ;-). > Naming is really important. :) It's worth hashing it out. +1. I can live with either of the above, but hate having naming inconsistencies. Sanjiva.
