Skip to content

SIBANK_NAMING_RECOMMENDATION.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
133 lines (90 loc) · 4.37 KB

SIBANK_NAMING_RECOMMENDATION.md

File metadata and controls

133 lines (90 loc) · 4.37 KB

Sibank Service Naming Recommendation

Current Situation

Currently, Sibank service is named as sibank-payment-service and categorized under Payment Gateway Adapters.

Issue:

  • Sibank is actually a credit gateway for receiving financial credit, not a direct payment gateway
  • The name sibank-payment-service is misleading as it suggests direct payment processing
  • It's categorized with payment gateways, but serves a different purpose

Recommended Options

Option 1: sibank-credit-service (Recommended ⭐)

Pattern: sibank-credit-service

Pros:

  • ✅ Clearly indicates credit functionality (not payment)
  • ✅ Accurate description of the service purpose
  • ✅ Self-documenting
  • ✅ Concise and clear
  • ✅ Follows the standard {provider}-{type}-service pattern

Cons:

  • ⚠️ Requires renaming existing repository
  • ⚠️ Different from other payment services pattern

Use Case: If Sibank is the only credit gateway service, this is the best option.

Option 2: sibank-credit-gateway-service

Pattern: sibank-credit-gateway-service

Pros:

  • ✅ Very explicit about being a credit gateway
  • ✅ Clearly differentiates from payment gateways
  • ✅ Self-documenting

Cons:

  • ⚠️ Longer than necessary
  • ⚠️ "gateway" might be redundant if it's clear from context

Use Case: If you want to be very explicit about the gateway nature.

Option 3: sibank-finance-service

Pattern: sibank-finance-service

Pros:

  • ✅ Generic enough to cover credit and other financial operations
  • ✅ Future-proof if Sibank adds more financial services

Cons:

  • ⚠️ Less specific (could be any financial service)
  • ⚠️ Doesn't clearly indicate credit functionality

Use Case: If Sibank provides multiple financial services beyond credit.

Option 4: Create New Category - Credit Gateway Services

Pattern: {provider}-credit-service or {provider}-credit-gateway-service

Category: Credit Gateway Services (separate from Payment Gateway Adapters)

Pros:

  • ✅ Clear separation between payment and credit services
  • ✅ Scalable if more credit gateways are added
  • ✅ Better organization and categorization

Cons:

  • ⚠️ Requires creating a new category in documentation
  • ⚠️ More complex structure

Use Case: If you have or plan to have multiple credit gateway services.

Recommendation

Recommended: Option 1 - sibank-credit-service

Rationale:

  1. Accuracy: Clearly indicates the service is for credit, not payment
  2. Clarity: Self-documenting - anyone reading the name understands it's for credit
  3. Consistency: Follows the standard {provider}-{type}-service pattern
  4. Simplicity: Concise and clear
  5. Appropriate: If Sibank is the only credit gateway, no need for a separate category

Alternative: Option 4 (if multiple credit gateways exist)

If you have or plan to have multiple credit gateway services, consider creating a separate category:

New Category: Credit Gateway Services

  • Pattern: {provider}-credit-service
  • Examples: sibank-credit-service, {other-provider}-credit-service

This provides better organization and scalability.

Implementation

If you choose Option 1 (sibank-credit-service):

  1. Update repositories.json:

    "github_name": "sibank-credit-service"

  2. Update NAMING_STANDARD.md:

    • Move Sibank from Payment Gateway Adapters section
    • Add as exception or create Credit Gateway Services section
    • Update examples

  3. Update any references in code/documentation

Comparison Table

Option Clarity Accuracy Length Scalability
sibank-payment-service (current) ⭐⭐ ⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐
sibank-credit-service ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐
sibank-credit-gateway-service ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐ ⭐⭐
sibank-finance-service ⭐⭐ ⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐
New Category (Credit Gateway) ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐

Final Recommendation

Use sibank-credit-service because:

  • It accurately reflects the service purpose (credit, not payment)
  • It's clear and self-documenting
  • It follows standard naming patterns
  • It's appropriate for a single credit gateway service

If you have multiple credit gateways, consider creating a separate "Credit Gateway Services" category.