Not to birddog the thread, but as an aside, I'd like to see an annotations based approach for the parser with a namespace, similar to how we do for stellar functions. This, I think, would make it easier for specifying them and we could associate descriptions, possible params for configuring them, etc.
Thoughts on this? On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Simon Elliston Ball < [email protected]> wrote: > At present we do not have a formal convention. Many organizations will no > doubt want to create their own conventions to match existing naming > methodologies. > > However, it seems like an excellent idea to at least produce some > community driven recommendations for a standard baseline those without > strong existing methods could adopt. > > I like your vendor-product approach, but would consider adding something > around model / series / version to that. Does anyone have any thoughts on > how such a taxonomy would work best? > > Simon > > > On 5 Oct 2016, at 18:22, Vladimir Shlyakhtin < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Does Metron have any recommendation for name convention for parsers? > Like vendor-product. > > > > Thanks > > > > - Vladimir >
