Agree that "Security & Identity Management" should not be "keycloak"

Suggest we use "auth" or "security" instead.

@Joe - I would hope that we could come up with names that work both upstream and downstream. Which ones would you have questions/concerns about?

--

John Frizelle

Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: +353 87 290 1644

twitter: @johnfriz

skype: john_frizelle

mail: jfrizell@redhat.com

On 11 January 2018 at 09:35, Paul Wright <pwright@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

thanks for starting this discussion, can I object to one item:

Security & Identity Management = keycloak

because this is likely to end up in downstream documentation, we should avoid names of upstream projects. In this case I hope we can use something like 'identity' instead?

Paul

On 01/10/2018 11:44 AM, Chris Foley wrote:

Hi All,

I had a brief discussion with John around Naming Conventions and what may be worth putting in place which could be beneficial but not restrictive. I wanted to kick start discussion on this around what may be worthwhile.

An important aspect of 5.x is the value add services and getting these in place and discoverable from Mobile Core. Should we be applying some naming convention or mandatory attributes to these services?

Attributes / Properties of a Service, e.g. ;

----------------------------------------------

Display Name: Push Notifications

id / serviceName: push

APB Label/Tag: mobile-service

Would it be any benefit if the APB tag (mobile-service) carried over and became a label on the OCP service (e.g. for the Core SDK to read what Mobile Services are available in a namespace)?

APB Integrations: <list of service ids of the services this service integrates with>

Some of the above may be agreed already!

We should agree on the actual serviceNames (interested to hear the Mobile Service Teams view on what the names should be):

Metrics = metrics

Push Notifications = push

Data Synchronisation = sync

Security & Identity Management = keycloak

Mobile Build Automation = build

API Gateway = gateway

Are there other naming aspects which could be worthwhile getting agreement on? Around the SDKs, as they are being designed now, it is probably worth considering also.

All opinions welcome.

Best Regards,

Chris.

--

CHRISTOPHER FOLEY

BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST, MOBILE

Red Hat Ireland

Communications House, Cork Road,

Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33

chfoley@redhat.com   

TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
feedhenry-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev

-- 
Paul Wright
Mobile Docs (github: finp)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
feedhenry-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
feedhenry-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev