You know what I hate?

[viveka.schwartz@implema.se]

Hello Mike,

Interesting discussion, since we all have our own standards of naming 
things, I think. 

My personal opinion is : 
Naming an object type  as  "Z+object type of supertype"  (or "z+object 
type of supertype"), for example ZBUS2096,  is more straight-forward and 
much easier to understand for another person, than the developer,  from 
which supertype the subtype is created and delegated from.

In the object name I would then rather clarify the object by for example 
defining the object name as "CustDebitMemoReq"  or even "z
CustDebitMemoReq" to point out that it's a subtype. 

Regards
Viveka





"Mike Pokraka" <asap at workflowconnections.com> 
Sent by: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
2006-12-19 12:03
Please respond to
"SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>


To
"SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
cc

Subject
Re: You know what I hate?






Hmmm, I used to agree with you. The SAP help also suggests using ordinary
English words.

However over the years of bouncing around different customer sites
(sometimes in rapid succession, sometimes even just for a single day) I
appreciated people using prefixes for much the same reasons Paul
described. Bughunting/understanding foreign workflows is much easier if
it's straightforward to spot which attributes are custom. So these days
I'm back in the other side and prefix them with a small z. (I find caps
more annoying - as in ZAmount).

What is annoying is people that create subtypes and call them ZBUS2096.
Huh? It's a Debit Memo Request. And your subtype should also be called the
same - perhaps with an 'Enhanced' suffix or similar. So I suaually create
subtypes and add a small z before the original object name - as in
zCustDebitMemoReq.

Just my 2p.
Cheers,
Mike


On Mon, December 18, 2006 21:59, Alon Raskin wrote:
> I know that this is mostly an academic argument but I would love to hear
> peoples thoughts on this...
>
> You know what I hate? I hate it when I look at a Z Business Object
> (delegated sub-type) and someone has created a method called zUpdate or 
an
> attribute called zAmount. Is there really a need for the 'z' in the name
> of the attribute/method? Perhaps there is something I am missing here so
> please feel free to point out the error of my ways.
>
> Do people do this because they don't realise that they can redefine an 
SAP
> delivered attribute/method? Or are they concerned that SAP will deliver 
an
> attribute with the exact same name? I assume that the redefined
> method/attribute would not be effected but perhaps someone has had this
> happen...
>
> I understand why people do it with append fields on a table but why do
> this for a BOR sub-type?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alon
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>


_______________________________________________
SAP-WUG mailing list
SAP-WUG at mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20061219/045defec/attachment.htm