So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do people
think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly to me given
it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still implies it is the
Apache one.)
Any other suggestions?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> 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
>>>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
