Is there a new naming convention for interfaces in Harmony?

I noticed a slight change in naming convention for interfaces. Which one is the current standard or recommended guidance?

In the Harmony Deskbook 4.1:

Interfaces names should be referenced to the sender port. Naming convention: i<Sender>_<Receiver>.

In Harmony MBSE Modeling Standards for use with UML, SysML, and Rhapsody:

Interfaces shall be named in terms of their semantic concept (e.g. iNavData or FLIRCommands) and their names shall be prefixed with a lower case 'i'.

6 comments

6 Comments

Bruce Douglass

Sep 05, 2019

In simple cases (a single interface between blocks) I use the i<Sender>_<Receiver> or, if I'm using interface blocks ib<Sender>_Receiver>. If the interface is complex enough to warrant multiple interfaces, then I switch the the latter semantic-oriented interface naming convention.

Unlike many people, I use the lower case "i" in interfaces because uppercase "I" looks like a one or lower case "L" in many fonts.

Bruce Douglass

Sep 05, 2019

Replying to

@cramos I used the Harmony Harmony SE toolkit automation which has its own rules. The i<sender>_<receiver> only makes sense when all information specified in the interface is flowing in one direction. This is not generally true, but when it is, the convention makes sense. In this case, the ACES_Management subsystem is the primary director of activities, so I put it in the Sender role even though, in general, flows happen in both directions. This is because systems are more complex than the 4.1 Deskbook would have you believe, one of my issues with it.

Site Map

Bruce Powel Douglass, Ph.D.

Is there a new naming convention for interfaces in Harmony?

(c) Bruce Powel Douglass, Ph.D. 2019, 2020

bruce.douglass@outlook.com