Different notation in new (7.1) parameters

Version 1
    This document was generated from CDN thread

    Created by: Stephan Steiner on 29-09-2009 01:25:16 PM
    The 7.x development projects finally started rolling in so I'm currently updating our AXL lib to do 7.0 and 7.1. the DirectoryNumber object got various new parameters and I noted something curious:
    Everything to do with park monitoring has names that start with an uppercase. The also new party entrance tone uses traditional camel notation though.
    So I'm wondering what the deal is here... it's not the only object where I noted new parameters that use a different notation. Shouldn't the notation be consistent?
    Also, while we're at it.. why is there an inconsistent use of notation when it comes to specifying uuids?
    E.g. routePartition in the line. getLine / addLine use routePartition/@uuid whereas in updateLine it's routePartitionId that contains the uuid element.
    Go to callPickupGroup and in the update we also use the callPickupGroup/@uuid notation, not callPickupGroupId, same goes for the new ParkMonForwardNoRetrieve(Int)CSS elements.

    Subject: RE: Different notation in new (7.1) parameters
    Replied by: David Staudt on 29-09-2009 02:36:14 PM
    Hi Stephen, indeed these inconsistencies are undesireable, and have been noted.  My understanding is that AXL for UCM 8.0 will be pretty much revamped, with many changes to improve consistency - these two specific types of issues will be addressed across the API.

    Subject: RE: Different notation in new (7.1) parameters
    Replied by: Stephan Steiner on 29-09-2009 05:46:01 PM
    Looking forward to it.. writing code manually is a pain.. but at least once I've tested it (and added the necessary workarounds for the bugs on the CCM that I inevitably find), it works without a glitch.
    Found another thing I find curious:
    in updatePhone I seem unable to find the geoLocationFilter and sendGeoLocation parameters.. they're in getPhone and addPhone. Note that I'm looking at the altova generated document available from this page.. I haven't yet regenerated the doc to have single pages per operation / object (then i can dare a search for those parameters.. but right now I'm just happy the browser isn't crashing).
    There are also discrepancies between the ccmdv.pdf and the schema.. e.g. in the one for release 7.01 it states that one of the new parameters for the devicePool is useDevicePoolCdpnTransformCSS - but in the schema that parameter is not there. And if I get lucky the response I get from the CCM will still contain it..