You know what I hate?

[Torsten Schnorpfeil]

Following this blog, I guess it might make sense for the flower community to
have some naming convention guidelines. Surely every workflower has his/her
own style, but projects might become a little more transparent later down
the road. 

Maybe a blog on SDN will appear one day;)

Torsten 

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Hill, Anna
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:21 PM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: You know what I hate?

I completely agree with Mike regarding the z prefix for a method - there's
also the additional benefit of it being very easy to spot as you just have
to scroll down to the bottom when entering your method into a task... (pure
laziness of course!). 

Something else I have come across quite a bit is custom tasks and workflows
being created without a z pre-fix - this I would *definitely* class as very
irritating. One could argue that the numbering alone is enough to identify
the source of the task but when flitting from project to project, often
working under short timescales, by far and away the easiest way to spot
custom objects is with searching with Z* so I would definitely say a Z
pre-fix here is a must. 



-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Pokraka
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:03 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
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