Root Model Package Naming Convention

ideas
1

At the moment the root model packages are following:

  • Attachments
  • Audit
  • Chat
  • Root
  • Root Menu
  • Security

Shouldn’t we add an origam prefix to differentiate them from the application packages?

  • origam-attachments
  • origam-audit
  • origam-chat
  • origam-root
  • origam-root-menu
  • origam-security
2

Makes sense. That would be an interesting migration task :slight_smile: Maybe we should solve model packaging first so we do not have to do such a model migration too many times?

3

Sure. My question arose while I was making a new sms package.

4

From my perspective, the question is much broader - should remain the approach to packages the same or can we split everything just into two categories:
1, ORIGAM (including all default packages)
2, My own (just my custom packages)
This needs a separate discussion…

5

I think the following use cases exist in general:

  • Root – Things needed by ORIGAM itself
  • Third party add-ons – Things added to ORIGAM (e.g. by means of plug-ins) in order to help the developer to build their solution
  • My own – The modelled solution itself
  • Customer extensions – In case the developer is selling their solution as a packaged product that is further customized by modelling
6

@tvavrda @washi
When creating a new package, this topic surfaced again.
We agreed with @zcapkova that she will name the package “Documentation”.

I suggest that we rename “origam-sms” to “SMS” and solve the issue by adding a new attribute (“author” ?) to the Package element.

We can replace “copyright” by it or leave both, if canceling of “copyright” is too much effort.

image
image658×330 10.2 KB

Separating the package groups can be done in GUI in the new Architect for example that will show My own first, then Root and then the other two groups for example.