Changing contract names for EM and Power notifications.

[dhoehna]

Contracts were added while the spec was being fleshed out. Changing to a spec compliant name.

Adding contracts to Environment Manager.

[dhoehna]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[DrusTheAxe]

This is rather broad. I expected EnvironmentManagerContract

There was a (tactical/concrete) question about WinAppSDK contract names and API Review. Let me check on that

[dhoehna]

#2110 (comment)

@jonwis said WindowsSystemContract.

Should the naming convention be "Something that describes the type", or "Namespace"?

[DefaultRyan]

I thought the naming convention was by "feature" or "feature set". Namespace is redundant, because the contract is already in a namespace, so this contract is currently named:
Microsoft.Windows.System.WindowsSystemContract

That's no good at all. I'm putting in another vote for EnvironmentManagerContract.

[dhoehna]

The only item in the spec that talks about contract naming is the rule "Contract names need to end with the word Contract."

I like EnvironmentManagerContract as well. Looks like there needs to be a talk about this.

[jonwis]

Contracts are units of versioning. I'm looking for a squishy middle here - UniversalApiContract is much too large. FooTypeContract is much too small. Other discussions suggest that a contract of 1-2 types is not interesting.

I think I'd go with WindowsSystemContract for now. Ideally we get one contract per "block of functionality" ... I know that's not a satisfying answer.

[bpulliam]

@dhoehna Is this still applicable?

[bpulliam]

Closing PRs that appear to have been abandoned.