I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.)
Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Heh - only with an extremely liberal definition of multiword. The list > really speaks for itself here. > > > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > > projects) > > > > They are each a single top level project with many sub projects. > > On 8/30/10 5:06 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > Ok, let's do a count. > > > > Single word: 49 > > Multiword: 26 > > > > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > > projects) > > > > Karl > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you > >> look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) > >> > >> On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>> TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of > >> names > >>> that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>>>> snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of > >>>> existing > >>>>> projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache > >> Foo > >>>>> Pipelines". -snip > >>>>> > >>>>> Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this > >> would > >>>>> imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. > >>>> > >>>> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant > to > >>>> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not > mandatory. > >>>> > >>>> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects > >>>> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique > >>>> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive > >>>> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract > 'component' > >>>> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are > >>>> not met very well. > >>>> > >>>> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a > pattern > >>>> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply > >>>> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This > >>>> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues > >>>> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one > >>>> word for the name is extremely uncommon. > >>>> > >>>> HTTP Server > >>>> Abdera > >>>> ActiveMQ > >>>> Ant > >>>> APR > >>>> Archiva > >>>> Avro > >>>> Buildr > >>>> Camel > >>>> Cassandra > >>>> Cayenne > >>>> Click > >>>> Cocoon > >>>> Commons > >>>> Continuum > >>>> CouchDB > >>>> CXF > >>>> DB > >>>> Directory > >>>> Excalibur > >>>> Felix > >>>> Forrest > >>>> Geronimo > >>>> Gump > >>>> Hadoop > >>>> Harmony > >>>> HBase > >>>> HttpComponents > >>>> Jackrabbit > >>>> Jakarta > >>>> James > >>>> Lenya > >>>> Logging > >>>> Lucene > >>>> Mahout > >>>> Maven > >>>> Mina > >>>> MyFaces > >>>> Nutch > >>>> ODE > >>>> OFBiz > >>>> OpenEJB > >>>> OpenJPA > >>>> OpenWebBeans > >>>> PDFBox > >>>> Perl > >>>> Pivot > >>>> POI > >>>> Portals > >>>> Qpid > >>>> Roller > >>>> Santuario > >>>> ServiceMix > >>>> Shindig > >>>> Sling > >>>> SpamAssassin > >>>> STDCXX > >>>> Struts > >>>> Subversion > >>>> Synapse > >>>> Tapestry > >>>> Tika > >>>> TCL > >>>> Tiles > >>>> Tomcat > >>>> TrafficServer > >>>> Turbine > >>>> Tuscany > >>>> UIMA > >>>> Velocity > >>>> Wicket > >>>> Web Services > >>>> Xalan > >>>> Xerces > >>>> XML > >>>> XMLBeans > >>>> XML Graphics > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Karl > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless > for > >>>> me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) > - > >>>>>> not really buying it would be a problem here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed > it > >>>>>> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: > >>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Mark > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
