Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as being
the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land grab"). We
should acknowledge that in the future there might be other projects that
seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There really should be
a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the name - and we
had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not acknowledge
that in the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but
that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe
the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the name, a
"handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL Apache
projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is "Connecto", the
full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the official project
name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That said, I am not a
fan of trying to put the project description into the name in raw English
form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors Framework" from
the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other "handle" is chosen.
As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that there
is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
conventions.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Willnauer" <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
To: "Grant Ingersoll" <gsing...@apache.org>
Cc: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it
was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or
nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it
make
sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
here!
simon
Karl
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey folks,
I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache
Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@.
Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors
Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible
confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some
suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion
on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't
apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss
further.
Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I
personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name.
Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and
they are less ambiguous.
Any suggestions, thoughts?
simon
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
