Board Review: Management Plane Namespace Review Microsoft.AzureLargeInstance about sdk HOT 16 CLOSED

The 1 week is up and there have been no objections from our architects on the names in the description of this issue. Please consider the proposed namespaces approved.

from sdk.

The proposed namespaces will have to be approved by @ArthurMa1978 and then the rest of our Architects, and I believe they will raise objections about the repetition of the Azure name. If @ArthurMa1978 approve here we can take it to the larger architect board for discussion.

from sdk.

@8Gitbrix,
I'm going to start an email thread with our architect team where we can discuss further and the architects can share their concerns.

from sdk.

@8Gitbrix, alright then I will start the second phase of the review process. The new names will be shown to the Azure SDK Architects, and they will have 1 week to make any objections to the names. I don't foresee there being any objections since most of them suggested we use these names. If there are no objections or all objections are handled by EoB on 10/27 then the names will be considered approved, and I will add a comment to this issue stating such.

from sdk.

According to the description of the service, my suggestion is:
.NET: Azure.ResourceManager.BareMetalInstance
Java: azure-resourcemanager-baremetalinstance(com.azure.resourcemanager.baremetalinstance)
Go/Golang: sdk/resourcemanager/baremetalinstance/armbaremetalinstance
JavaScript: @azure/arm-baremetalinstance
Python: azure-mgmt-baremetalinstance

from sdk.

@ArthurMa1978 Thanks for the suggestion!
Since this is also a new namespace with separate sdks from bare metal infrastructure, wouldn't a separate name as in AzureLargeInstance be okay for the sdk names?

I've discussed and confirmed with this LaDonna

from sdk.

@8Gitbrix,
How will the service be branded? Is Azure Large Instance the brand name? And if so, why wasn't it used for the API Spec?

from sdk.

Yup Azure Large Instance is the new name we use to refer to our service for new customers. I'm not sure I understand your question, in the API spec this same name is used?

from sdk.

@ArthurMa1978,
Can you explain why you think the libraries should use the BareMetalInstance name? It looks like Azure Large Instance is the naming used in the API Spec.

@8Gitbrix,
One note on your proposed namespaces. It doesn't look like you kept the casing from the samples. Only .NET uses upper case letters. All other languages should be all lower case letters. Also, we don't reuse the Azure name in the libraries. For example, in .NET, instead of Azure.ResourceManager.AzureLargeInstance it should just be Azure.ResourceManager.LargeInstance.

from sdk.

@ronniegeraghty Thanks for catching that. Would it be okay for us to use Azure in the name? As a part of the rebranding from BMI, our team specifically wants Azure in our name to make it clear to customers that this is an Azure cloud product instead of a separate one.

from sdk.

@ronniegeraghty Thanks for catching that. Would it be okay for us to use Azure in the name? As a part of the rebranding from BMI, our team specifically wants Azure in our name to make it clear to customers that this is an Azure cloud product instead of a separate one.

The Azure at the top level of the namespaces should accomplish this right? We find repeating the Azure name again in the lowest level of the namespace is repetitive and makes the namespaces unnecessarily longer.

from sdk.

I see. We'd still like Azure in the sdk name. Scott Guthrie and our marketing team have been pushing for this

from sdk.

@ArthurMa1978, Can you explain why you think the libraries should use the BareMetalInstance name? It looks like Azure Large Instance is the naming used in the API Spec.

@8Gitbrix, One note on your proposed namespaces. It doesn't look like you kept the casing from the samples. Only .NET uses upper case letters. All other languages should be all lower case letters. Also, we don't reuse the Azure name in the libraries. For example, in .NET, instead of Azure.ResourceManager.AzureLargeInstance it should just be Azure.ResourceManager.LargeInstance.

My suggestion is based on the introduction of the service https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/baremetal-infrastructure/concepts-baremetal-infrastructure-overview, and BareMetal is a well-known name in the industry, but I'm ok for LargeInstance:
.NET: Azure.ResourceManager.LargeInstance
Java: azure-resourcemanager-largeinstance(com.azure.resourcemanager.largeinstance)
Go/Golang: sdk/resourcemanager/largeinstance/armlargeinstance
JavaScript: @azure/arm-largeinstance
Python: azure-mgmt-largeinstance

from sdk.

To clarify will we still be able to use Azure in the namespace name? As a part of the rebranding from BMI to ALI, Scott Guthrie and our team specifically want Azure to be in the namespace, as in AzureLargeInstance

from sdk.

@ronniegeraghty @ArthurMa1978 Given the low customer impact and upon discussion with my team we decided to go ahead with the suggestion to use LargeInstance. I have updated the package namespace proposals.

from sdk.

@ronniegeraghty Any updates on this?

from sdk.