You know what I hate?

[Mike Pokraka]

Hi Viveka,
I agree, sorry wasn't completely clear there - I was talking about the
NAME as well as the object TYPE. Sounds obvious, but I see it on the
majority of systems I work on (which is what prompted me to mention it in
first place).

A quick look at Z* on my current client shows 10 out of 19 objects that
have no reference to the real name... I'm talking:

Object type: ZBUS2052   (this one I agree with)
Name:        ZBUS2052
Description: Subtype of BUS2052

I kid you not, I see this a *lot*.

Of course more flexible class names make this discussion almost obsolete :-)

Cheers,
Mike


On Tue, December 19, 2006 11:28, viveka.schwartz at implema.se wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>