Rename "application-name" and "service-name"

[itewk]

Purpose

I have never liked the "application" and "service" monikers, but could never think of a better option. After conversation with @BillBensing and @raffaelespazzoli a new idea came out.

a system are composed of components. Where system replaces applicaiton and component replaces service. I really like this idea becasue we already use the component lanugae when talking about the infrastrcture that supports everything so it fits well here. I think it also avoids the complication of people having a defintion in their head what an app is and what a service is.

Proposal

Since both of these values are fundemental to a lot of steps I wnat to add a @property to StepImpleneter base class to get them that looks like:

    @property
    def system_name(self):
        return self.get_value(['system-name', 'application-name'])

    @property
    def component_name(self):
        return self.get_value(['component-name', 'service-name'])

And then find and replace all instances of self.get_value('applicaiton-name') and self.get_value('service-name') with a call to that property that now lives in the base StepImplementer.

This means that we are botgh backwards compatabile, and should we ever choose to fullly depcricate the old property value, we only have to do it in one place.

Decisions

what should the new proprties be called, i get in nots between system or system-name and component or component-name i like the -name for explicity and dont like it for being overly verbose.

Or maybe everyone hates the idea of changing the names, but maybe everyone can at least buy off on moving to these to properties in the base StepImpleneter class?

[itewk]

@dwinchell @christophermay07 @BillBensing @twling @kharyam what say you?

[kharyam]

@itewk I like the idea of updating to system/component while maintaining backward compatibility with application/service. We've gotten used to application/service but the terms caused some confusion initially and will presumably continue to do so for new adoptees of ploigos. Definitely agree with moving the properties to the base StepImplementer at the very least.

[itewk]

@itewk I like the idea of updating to system/component while maintaining backward compatibility with application/service. We've gotten used to application/service but the terms caused some confusion initially and will presumably continue to do so for new adoptees of ploigos. Definitely agree with moving the properties to the base StepImplementer at the very least.

sweet. now to only do the work...

[dwinchell]

@itewk I like "Component". I'm less keen on "System" because to me it sounds like there should only be one "System". fwiw App Studio uses Application/Component. I kinda like -name. Props in base sounds good.

[itewk]

@itewk I like "Component". I'm less keen on "System" because to me it sounds like there should only be one "System". fwiw App Studio uses Application/Component. I kinda like -name. Props in base sounds good.

sounds good to me.