VS Code, Create new Project, C#, title and description can be made clearer

[softchris]

Currently, you create a Durable functions project for C# in VS Code by following a wizard and selecting a task called DurableFunctionsOrchestration. What it in fact does it to give you a Start, Orchestration and first Activity function. That's great, but it's a surprise given its name and lack of a description (and given how it works for JavaScript where this is three separate tasks).

My suggestion:

Rename from DurableFunctionsOrchestration to DurableFunctionsStarter and add description saying something like this:

This task will create a Start function, and Orchestration function, and a first activity function. 

[fabiocav]

@AnatoliB thoughts on this? This seems to make sense.

[AnatoliB]

I agree the current name is confusing. I'm not sure about the proposed name though, as "Starter" may be also interpreted as "the starter function only". @anthonychu, what do you think?

[anthonychu]

Agree that it could use a better name but also agree that "starter" would be confusing in this context.

[liliankasem]

@AnatoliB @anthonychu any thoughts on next steps to address this, we don't think it's part of the host project but should be tracked somewhere?

[AnatoliB]

@softchris Please note that the template is called DurableFunctionsOrchestration, and not DurableFunctionsOrchestrator. There is a difference between orchestrator and orchestration, even though these terms look similar:

• Orchestrator is a function type. One of the functions created by the template will be of this type.
• Orchestration is a more complex entity. I couldn't find a strict definition now, but please check out the link. This term is used to encompass all the involved orchestrator and function definitions (both orchestrator and activity functions), together with the execution context, history, etc. It is definitely not limited by the orchestrator function only.

With this idea in mind, the current name (DurableFunctionsOrchestration) does not look that bad. However, I do acknowledge the visual similarity of these two words, and I know that users often treat them as interchangeable. I'm still not convinced this deserves a change.

@cgillum What do you think about improving the template name?

[cgillum]

I think I mostly agree with what everyone has said so far. However, I do like the suggestion of "DurableFunctionsStarter". I agree it's ambiguous with the "client" function that's often used to "start" durable orchestrations, but I actually feel it's less ambiguous since there is no "starter" concept today (just the "client") and I assume most users won't have a preconceived notion of what a starter/client function is.