Duplicate application names

[fstekelenburg]

Duplicate Application names, I thought it was not possible, but creating an application with existing name seems to be possible. But is undesired in my point of view, there may be a purpose, but I do not see it. Besides monitoring the underlying domains separately yet still using the same name.
You can have the application list with multiple of the same name, but from outside you can not tell which is which.
Maybe we've to starting thinking of application grouping?

[Julius_Loman · Accepted solution]

You can rename the application anytime, but the identifier (APPLICATION-123456789ABCDEF) is important. Initially, the identifier is derived from the application name, but then it stays fixed for the lifetime of the application. Yes, this may be confusing, but for example, this is valid also for other entities such as hosts, process groups or services.

What you can't have is duplicate action names of the same user action type within an application.

[fstekelenburg]

I know they can be renamed, and the name is merely a label to the entity, identified indeed as you indicate.
But since there's no warning in the UI, the application can be easily be recreated by mistake. So make a notification 'already exists are you sure' would be an RFE candidate I guess 🙂

I understand it works as designed. But having a application list that contains the same name multiple times, does not necessarily make things clearer:

EasyTravel  Poor  0.03 /min  Visually complete: 2.9 s  -  0.00 /min  0.16 /min
EasyTravel  Good  0.12 /min  Visually complete: 2.5 s  -  0.25 /min  0.56 /min
EasyTravel  Good  0.20 /min  Visually complete: 1.7 s  -  0.02 /min  1.05 /min
EasyTravel  No user actions during past 21min   Poor   0.12 /min  Visually complete: 1.2 s  -  0.03 /min   0.89 /min

So proper configuration and naming policies need to be defined and followed. 

[ChadTurner]

to add to @Julius_Loman, you also cannot have duplicate rules on two different applications. 

[Julius_Loman]

Yes, that's correct. Having duplicate rules, however, does not make any sense.