Upayavira wrote:
I've been thinking more about Sylvain's proposal and ideas. And would
like to suggest a way to look at it and see how it fits into the context
of what we already have.
Sylvain is proposing something different, something that is likely to be
almost entirely incompatible with the existing Cocoon. If it is almost
entirely incompatible, how can we think of it as in some way being a
_continuation_ of what we already have?
This, it is _not_ Cocoon 3.0. It is something else.
Thus, I agree with Sylvain that it should have a new name, but think
that Raccoon is a bad one, as it is a play on Cocoon and could never
really be the project's real name. Imagine it, "powered by Apache Cocoon
Raccoon". Hmm.
So, what I'd propose is we choose another name, and consider it to be a
new subproject of Cocoon. A "new, exciting web development framework
from the people that brought you Apache Cocoon".
And, the existing Cocoon carries on as long as people want and need it.
Maybe 3.0 could still be the OSGi version. It may well still bring huge
benefits to those using the current generation of Cocoon.
Thoughts? (Other than "oh no, not another naming discussion!")
Regards, Upayavira
(P.S. If people do agree, I'd say please refrain from providing possible
names at the moment. We can discuss that later. For now, let's see if
people agree with what I am suggesting).
The initial RT was more about "enhancements", i.e. I did not write
explicitely that the amount of changes required to implement them would
lead to a large or even complete rewrite, even if I was personally
convinced of it. I wanted to test the waters and see how people would react.
Now it happened that many people agreed that some deep changes were
needed, and that what I proposed was going in the right direction. While
some people consider that a revolution is not the way to go, those that
do agree on the stated goals of simplification, layering, improved
consistency, etc, and a common vision is currently being built.
So yes, this is something different. Just like Cocoon 2 was also
different from Cocoon 1. And it will be incompatible with the current
Cocoon, even if it uses many of its core principles. So do we need a new
name or a major version number? As I already said, Cocoon suffers from
its past as a publication framework, and most of the people that never
used it still consider it so, when we all know that it's really much
more than this.
So a new name is a way to say to the masses that it's definitely no more
"just" a publication framework. Now we should not denigrate the current
Cocoon nor our history. That was the idea behind "Raccoon": used alone,
it shows its filiation. But it's right that "Cocoon Racoon" really
sounds awkward.
So as we don't know yet if it will be "Apache Cocoon 3.0", "Apache
Cocoon FooBar" or "Apache FooBar", let's give it a code name and see
along the road how we want to name it. Doing a global search/replace to
change a root package name is an easy thing.
In the meantime, what about simply "CoNG", for "Cocoon New Generation".
This name isn't that nice, which will make us want to find something
else, but solves the immediate need of having a word to designate this
new thing without fighting about version numbers, separate projects, my
name is nicer than yours, etc.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://bluxte.net http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
