What's in a name? "Generate..."

• "... Data Types"
• "... Data Contracts"
• "... Data Transfer Objects"

Please help us in finding the optimal way of naming the major new feature in WSCF 0.7. Go and vote by leaving a comment for this post. Thanks!

Note: we do not support WCF with WSCF 0.7, but Data Contract is in this case rather a common term.

Comments

[T.J.]

I prefer ... Data Types. I frequently use WSCF to generate data types from XSD on projects that aren't even messaging systems. I think the contract is the actual XSD, not the objects that represent the XSD, and transfer objects implies that the generated code is only suitable for messaging systems, which isn't actually the case. I'll just be glad that I don't have to generate WSDL and ASMX on these projects any more.

[Edward]

Christian, In my opinion you should Data Contract. It’s the concept that matters in this case. Ideally there should be a consistent naming between the ASMX and (possible/future?) WCF implementation. Cheers, Edward

[danijel]

wscf is all about interoperability so i think if it's not too much over the fence that dto should fit the convention and this paricular context (interoperability context).