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
>
>
