Classes should follow naming convention

[wojtek0806]

There are quite a few classes that do not follow naming convention, i.e using plural or _s for collections and singular for resources:

e.g. policys_s, policys ==> policys_s, policy profiles_s, profiles ==> profiles_s, profile

There are a lot more examples, and we should refactor this to stay in line with what we set in our dev guide. This will break backwards compatibility.

[wojtek0806]

@zancas @pjbreaux @caphrim007 @jasonrahm

[wojtek0806]

After some thinking on the subject, i think the best approach is to follow naming pattern derived from json kind. This would mean as follows:

1. If the the last part of json kind for a name of a resource is in plural, the sub-collection class name of that resource would have '_s' added. Then subsequently, the resource class name would be in plural. For example:

tm:security:firewall:rule-list:rules:rulesstate

Collection = RULES_S
Resource = RULES

2. If the the last part of json kind for a name of a resource is in singular, the sub-collection class name of that resource would have 's' or '_s' added. However name of the class for resource would be in singular. For example:

tm:security:firewall:address-list:address-liststate

Collection = Address_Lists
Resource = Address_List

tm:asm:policies:policystate

Collection = Policies_s
Resource = Policy

@caphrim007 @jasonrahm @zancas @pjbreaux

Please let me know your thoughts, and if you agree, we need to put this inside developer documentation. I will start refactoring after we agree on the end format. This will break backwards compatibility in some cases.

[wojtek0806]

We have to do this sooner than later in order to have this SDK remain consistent.

[caphrim007]

how is this any different that what is already there?

[wojtek0806]

There are few places where it is inconsistent

[wojtek0806]

closing due to lack of interest

[caphrim007]

re-opening. this still needs to be fixed. there is no lack of interest