I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G? Concretely there are 2 options:
- keep G and promote the project with its new goal - drop it and name it with something new Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO. Wdyt? Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo > itself to XBean? > > I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates > to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ? > > John > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle >> from the rest of xbean. >> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same >> version. >> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > Can we rename Geronimo Config? I think the name is strongly stuck with >> the app server. From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is >> usually an uphill battle. >> > >> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config. Open >> to other names as well. >> > >> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the >> same version as the other xbean components. We could, but I think 1.0 >> would still be fine. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > David Blevins >> > http://twitter.com/dblevins >> > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > >> >>
