This message was deleted.

What’s your suggestion?

first at least drop the suffix

Args

if possible because it's not consistent with docs Then make use of namespaces as Zen of python says - I wonder how it would look if we could break it down into packages

import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

Let's say: I have

ServiceSourceConfiguration

FWIW, you don’t need to use the

Args

classes. They are provided as a convenience and an alternative to using keyword args. We added them recently as a user request so that args could be passed around separately from the resources. That being said, this is not about python but how the resources are structured in the encapsulating providers. Anyway, welcome to our world… let us know if you figure out how to do it in a way that you find more appealing and we’ll consider it 🙂

I took a lot of inspiration from CDK to me it seems they are on the right track

I’d rather

authentication_configuration=AuthenticationConfiguration(connection_arn='asdf')

This is how it currently works.

no, current Class name is

ServiceSourceConfigurationAuthenticationConfiguration

it should be at least 2 or 3 nested packages in order to prevent namespace conflicts. not just concacetnating names

It’s unlikely that we will take a massive breaking change like this, but you are welcome to open an issue and summarize your suggestion