• State Not Answered
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 7 subscribers
  • Views 3600 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related Discussions
Home » Discussions » General

Naming convention for process variables and CDT elements

Dan

I'm kicking off development on a new application and am thinking about the naming convention for process variables and CDT elements.
Should the convention follow reverse Hungarian notation where the type of the CDT attribute or PV is included as a suffix, eg pv!firstName_txt or should it leave out the prefix, ie pv!firstName?

I can see pros and cons for each approach and would like to here what others are doing on their projects.
...

OriginalPostID-131831

OriginalPostID-131831

  Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible

Parents
  • 0
    Appian Employee
    Internally we started dropping the suffix from the name for a few reasons:
    - In many cases the type is obvious from the name
    - CDT definition contains attribute types and you will be using CDTs most of the time.
    - Devs quickly learn the types of the attributes they work on so the longer names quickly become cumbersome to work with - they lengthen the expressions and make them harder to read.
Reply
  • 0
    Appian Employee
    Internally we started dropping the suffix from the name for a few reasons:
    - In many cases the type is obvious from the name
    - CDT definition contains attribute types and you will be using CDTs most of the time.
    - Devs quickly learn the types of the attributes they work on so the longer names quickly become cumbersome to work with - they lengthen the expressions and make them harder to read.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Appian. All rights reserved.
We want to hear from you! Submit a review on Gartner or G2.