[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15130120#comment-15130120
]
Ged edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/3/16 9:53 AM:
---------------------------------------------------
My name suggestion: Apache Engelbart
This is in tribute to computer pioneer Douglas Engelbart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart
Please let me explain why.
I notice from the tonuge in cheek examples that you want to distinguish ISIS
from the main competition: JHipster.
Here is the critical difference between Apache Isis and JHipster.
* Apache Isis is a framework for *AUGMENTATION*
* jHipster is a framework for *AUTOMATION*
If we return to the Isis' Naked Object roots and the principles that Richard
Pawson set out in his thesis and book.
When defining the Naked Object approach the second principle put the human in
control:
| Instead of pursuing optimal efficiency in the execution of each of a finite
set of scripted tasks, design *a form of user interaction that maximizes the
overall effectiveness of the users in fulfilling their broader
responsibilities.* This means giving the users more control, for example over
the order in which capabilities are invoked in order to achieve a goal. We
should also design systems that allow users to become more expert as they
learn, rather than constraining everyone to the lowest common denominator. |
| http://www.nakedobjects.org/book/section7.html (emphais added) |
So the Naked Objects approach is not about developing UIs faster or any type of
architecture. Those are just enablers that helps us reach the goal of
augmenting human activities. Augmenting the human activities that both develop
and use software systems.
Engelbart was the pioneer of using computers for human augmentation. His goal
was the "boosting mankind’s capability for coping with complex, urgent
problems". Reenskaug's forward to Pawson's thesis includes this quote:
| By "augmenting human intellect" we mean increasing the capability of a man to
approach
a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular
needs, and to
derive solutions to problems. . . Increased capability in this respect is taken
to mean a
mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the
possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that
previously was
too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of
finding solutions to
problems that before seemed insoluble. |
| http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html |
Engelbarts 'Mother of all Demos' is essential viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY
I believe that Apache Isis also suffers from being to ahead of it's time, as
Engelbart was. Here's an interesting retrospect on how Engelbart came to see
his career as a failure:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-shocking-truth-about-silicon-valley-genius-doug-engelbart/
I believe that this change of name should be taken as an opportunity to return
this goal of human augmentation as the central theme for the project, keeping
alive the vision of Pawson and Engelbart. By focusing on allowing humans to do
more by augmenting their capabilities rather than seeking to have humans do
less by automating what they do.
h1. Apache Engelbart
* speedier solutions
* better solutions
* solutions to problems that were once insoluble
Engelbart also helps us understand how DDD fits into all this, with his
emphasis on comprehension: "more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the
possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that
previously was
too complex"
I feel that DDD has lost it's way because the focus has been on the second half
- the patterns for implementation. The real power of DDD is in the first half:
Knowledge Crunching. The implementation patterns are just enablers for
achieving better comprehension, progressively gaining more insight into complex
domains.
I would also recommend looking into Shyam Sankar
https://www.ted.com/speakers/shyam_sankar
was (Author: ged.by...@gmail.com):
My name suggestion: Apache Engelbart
This is in tribute to computer pioneer Douglas Engelbart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart
Please let me explain why.
I notice from the tonuge in cheek examples that you want to distinguish ISIS
from the main competition: JHipster.
Here is the critical difference between Apache Isis and JHipster.
* Apache Isis is a framework for *AUGMENTATION*
* jHipster is a framework for *AUTOMATION*
If we return to the Isis' Naked Object roots and the principles that Richard
Pawson set out in his thesis and book.
When defining the Naked Object approach the second principle put the human in
control:
| Instead of pursuing optimal efficiency in the execution of each of a finite
set of scripted tasks, design *a form of user interaction that maximizes the
overall effectiveness of the users in fulfilling their broader
responsibilities.* This means giving the users more control, for example over
the order in which capabilities are invoked in order to achieve a goal. We
should also design systems that allow users to become more expert as they
learn, rather than constraining everyone to the lowest common denominator. |
| http://www.nakedobjects.org/book/section7.html (emphais added) |
So the Naked Objects approach is not about developing UIs faster or any type of
architecture. Those are just enablers that helps us reach the goal of
augmenting human activities. Augmenting the human activities that both develop
and use software systems.
Engelbart was the pioneer of using computers for human augmentation. His goal
was the "boosting mankind’s capability for coping with complex, urgent
problems". Reenskaug's forward to Pawson's thesis includes this quote:
| By "augmenting human intellect" we mean increasing the capability of a man to
approach
a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular
needs, and to
derive solutions to problems. . . Increased capability in this respect is taken
to mean a
mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the
possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that
previously was
too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of
finding solutions to
problems that before seemed insoluble. |
| http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html |
Engelbarts 'Mother of all Demos' is essential viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY
I believe that Apache Isis also suffers from being to ahead of it's time, as
Engelbart was. Here's an interesting retrospect on how Engelbart came to see
his career as a failure:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-shocking-truth-about-silicon-valley-genius-doug-engelbart/
I believe that this change of name should be taken as an opportunity to return
this goal of human augmentation as the central theme for the project, keeping
alive the vision of Pawson and Engelbart. By focusing on allowing humans to do
more by augmenting their capabilities rather than seeking to have humans do
less by automating what they do.
h1. Apache Engelbart
* speedier solutions
* better solutions
* solutions to problems that were once insoluble
Engelbart also helps us understand how DDD fits into all this, with his
emphasis on comprehension: "more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the
possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that
previously was
too complex"
I feel that DDD has lost it's way because the focus has been on the second half
- the patterns for implementation. The real power of DDD is in the first half:
Knowledge Crunching. The implementation patterns are just enablers for
achieving better comprehension, progressively gaining more insight into complex
domains.
I would also recommend looking into Shyam Sankar
https://www.ted.com/speakers/shyam_sankar
> Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISIS-1303
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303
> Project: Isis
> Issue Type: Wish
> Affects Versions: 1.11.1
> Reporter: Dan Haywood
> Assignee: Dan Haywood
> Fix For: 1.13.0
>
>
> In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the
> project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of
> sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in
> the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view
> has been to retain our name: "we were here first".
> Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came
> up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it
> flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live
> within Oxfordshire, UK).
> Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we
> marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern
> [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the
> Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or
> is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea
> immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't
> help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures.
> Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an
> obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the
> core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However
> - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't
> really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the
> DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is
> perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not
> using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such
> developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain
> code.
> Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I
> don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a
> major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get
> side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well
> and good, but over-emphasised).
> [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in
> person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our
> framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing
> behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...]
> Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might
> come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own
> individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile
> development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for
> granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?"
> What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept
> or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea.
> There are several candidates:
> - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion
> architecture, and related to the clean architecture)
> - don't repeat yourself principle
> - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the
> recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern)
> - the general concept of modularity
> - DCI (data/context/interactions).
> - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model
> - agile, lean
> - breaking down barriers between IT and business
> Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well
> regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no
> open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position
> themselves as being the natural choice.
> Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around
> this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered.
> Candidate names:
> - hex (might hit trademark issues)
> - hexagon
> - hexagn (deliberately mis-spelled)
> - hxg (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal, extensible, generic)
> - hx (too short?)
> some made up words
> - hexag (partial word)
> - hexadom (sounds like a dinosaur?)
> - mhodex (an anagram of hex and mod)
> A common usage of hexagons is in bee hives, so:
> - honeycomb (the outer hexagon is the BC, the inner hexagons are modules)
> - comb (abbreviating it)
> picking up on the DRY principle, we have deserts (might have trademark
> issues):
> - sahara
> - kalahari
> - gobi
> Or, we could go a different way altogether. Some random ideas:
> - meld (mind-meld, joining together)
> - sweetheart (because we love it)
> - neuron (too bland?)
> - razor (trademark issues?)
> - razr (trademark issues?)
> Any new name must pass the ASF naming procedures, documented in [5]. Of
> these, the most significant is not conflicting with any existing US
> trademarks. However, it's also work checking out what google says for any
> potential name. For example, if googling for "Apache Hex" (which I quite
> like), the first entry is for "Apache Hex Nipple".
> In terms of tag lines, our current is "Domain Driven Applications, Quickly".
> Instead of that, ideas we've been brainstorming off-line are:
> - "own your code" (custom software is a profit centre, not a cost centre)
> - "be responsible, own your code" (more imperative, assertive)
> - "stay dry" or "keep dry" (alluding to the DRY principle)
> - "simple, but no simpler"
> - "don't be square" (a great joke on hexagons)
> We also had other some joke straplines; these are *not* to be taken seriously
> but I can't resist including them here:
> - "not for hipsters" (we've noticed how we appeal to those developers who've
> been around the block; we include ourselves in that descriptoin)
> - "please shave" (hipster joke)
> - "shave before use" (hipster joke)
> - "come back when you're ready"
> - "one day you'll see
> - "monkey see, monkey do" (my favorite expression)
> OK, that's it. Please comment on this ticket, and add your own ideas. If
> you have name suggestions, also use [5] to check if they are likely to pass
> US trademarks.
> Thx
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Isis
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design
> [5] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/naming
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
