My main concern is that assigning a generic name (such as "reports" or "analytics") to a component that is just one very specific way (and in some ways limited/questionable for the way the Birt has been integrated) to implement an integration with a reporting tool may be misleading.
Jacopo On Feb 26, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently, all component names describe - in one word - what the components > are about and what kind of functionality the user - from a business point > of view - can expect. As examples: accounting is related to the various > accounting (financial, gl, invoicing, payment, , etc) functions and > services, and projectmgr is related to program and project management, > project task assignment and time registration. > > The birt component is a bit the odd one out. The name doesn't say in that > one word what it delivers. In stead it is an acronym for a specific third > party integration solution and another open source project with the same > name (birt, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIRT_Project ). One could > even say it is the name of a tool, not the name of a business > functionality. > > In order to be able to increase awareness of the multitude of business > functionalities (as could be done by using the name of the components) and > improve adoption, I suggest to change the name (and the references to it in > the component and others) to something that is more to the point business > wise. > > I propose we rename it to 'reports'. > > What do you think? > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com
