# Project Naming Standards

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/project-naming-standards/106721>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Created:** [May 27, 2025, 1:26pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/project-naming-standards/106721 "2025-05-27T13:26:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![drewdin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/drewdin/32/3363_2.png) [@drewdin](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/drewdin)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 3:45pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/project-naming-standards/106721/21 "2025-05-28T15:45:02Z")

</div>

That's correct, the front ends have RTP from the back ends but we tend to have a back end per division which could be 3-4. I have been doing a rtp per project which this conversation has me thinking of changing that to one per gateway and naming it site/product line or division/gateway number or something similar.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 3:47pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/project-naming-standards/106721/22 "2025-05-28T15:47:20Z")

</div>

> [@drewdin](#):
>
> one per gateway and naming it

site+division would be the best compromise, I would think.

[Previous page](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/project-naming-standards/106721.md?page=1)