I prefer [3]. On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:53 AM Ning Kang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > Last week, I sent a design doc > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aKK8TzSrl8WiG0K4v9xZEfLMCinuGqRlMOyb7xOhgy4/edit?usp=sharing> > and proposals in this email thread > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r76596394aa403a1d95f3bda915a327c3932c0da88a9136fd903dc1c8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E> > about > creating a JupyterLab extension for Interactive Beam > <https://github.com/KevinGG/beam/tree/master/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/interactive#interactive-beam>. > If you haven't had a chance to look at it and you're interested in > Interactive Beam, please feel free to leave comments. > > Let's start a vote for the name of this extension to be used when > published to NPM <https://www.npmjs.com/>. > Here are some of the candidate names: > [1] apache-beam-sidepanel > [2] apache-beam-interactive-sidepanel > [3] apache-beam-jupyterlab-sidepanel > [4] <I don't like [1][2][3], my proposal is ${XXX}> > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > > Thanks! > > Ning. >
