Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really nice, But I'd like to change naming.
Maybe we can create a new dir at protobuf/definition and have service.proto and workflow.proto(in future) there with Service and Workflow type names. Because this way they'll feel generic by not having the coreapi namespace. This is good specially when we create some systemservices and they can use this proto definitions under definition namespace.
And we can have definition.Service inside coreapi.Service this way not coreapi.ServiceDetail. Which is a better name in my thinking.
|
Thanks for the feedback, I agree naming was bad. I was able to change few things:
Only problem with that is If anyone knows a better solution i would be really happy :) |
Fixed in b09e24f |
ilgooz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer singular name definition instead of definitions
other than that lgtm
NicolasMahe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the concept of this PR but i would like definitions to be renamed to definition.
I already did it in this following PR: #852.
So we can merge in whatever way.
…ice-rename Rename protobuf/definitions to protobuf/definition
A first step to the discussion yesterday about having a proto definition for the service that we use everywhere and that is totally independent of the local environment.
Here I splitted the service into it's own proto definition and update the apis:
They return now a
ServiceDetailthat contains 2 data:I'm not really fan of the naming for the api so feel free to propose something better