Closed michaeltlombardi closed 5 months ago
Another alternative naming convention would be to have the last segment of the type name before the /
be Group
for group resources and Provider
for provider resources.
Then the naming syntax would be:
<owner>[.<group>][.<area>][.(Group|Provider)]/<name>
Either convention could be extended to help indicate other resource types, like assertion resources.
We may want to consider different naming conventions for DSC groups resources that are part of dsc.exe (basically built-in) vs DSC resources that may ship with DSC (PowerShellGroup, WMIGroup, for example). Seems like built-in should use DSC/<resourceName
, but the others we may want as Microsoft/WindowsPowerShellGroup
, Microsoft/PowerShell7Group
, and Microsoft.Windows/WMIGroup
.
WG discussed and closing this in favor of Kind and new naming conventions discussed.
This was fixed as part of https://github.com/PowerShell/DSC/pull/341
Summary of the new feature / enhancement
As a user, I want to be able to tell at a glance whether an instance of a resource in a configuration manages a single instance, a group of instances, or is a provider for other instances.
Right now, there is an informal convention of appending
Group
to the type name, but this is used for both resource groups and resource providers.We should have some standard guidance and follow it for the first-party resources.
Proposed technical implementation details (optional)
The current documentation for fully qualified type names says:
We could add additional guidance here for resource groups and providers, like: