Hi Chinthaka:
ConfigurationContext AxisConfiguration
| |
ServiceGroupContext ServiceGroupDescription
| |
ServiceContext ServiceGroupDescription
| |
OperationContext ServiceDescription
|
MessageContext
Assuming you meant ServiceContext->ServiceDescription,
OperationContext->OperationDescription, and MessageContext->??
For consistancy and clarity, I'd like to propose to do a small name change.
1. ConfigurationContext --> AxisContext
2. AxisConfiguration --> AxisDescription
+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
The reason for this is twofold - first, the "description" suffix isn't
really necessary, and I think might be confusing with WSDL descriptions
(yes, the classes relate to WSDL structure, but the whole reason we have
our own classes which inherit from the WSDL ones is to add Axis-specific
stuff that usually does NOT get reflected in the WSDL). Second, these
are the names (except of course ServiceGroup) that we agreed to at the
first F2F.
The reason I didn't make it "AxisServiceGroup" is simply that
ServiceGroup isn't going to be as frequently used a class name as
"Operation" and "Service" might be. I'd be OK with that too.
We do always have naming wars, hope this will not be another one :)
Naming is really important. :) It's worth hashing it out.
--Glen
