Open Connectors Framework is good, but suffers from the same broadness issue that Apache Connectors Framework has, no? Yukon is fine but is already used - see https://devel.neopsis.com/projects/yukon/
Here are my thoughts about a more restricted CF-style name: Repository Connectors Framework CM Connectors Framework Combining an abstract name plus the descriptive name may get us somewhere: Yukon Connectors Framework Acromantula Connectors Framework (this is actually great because I don't have to rename the bloody source packages again!) I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>wrote: > 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 > >