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
Communications House, Cork Road,
Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33
 |
_______________________________________________ feedhenry-dev mailing list feedhenry-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev