On 8/27/2010 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote: > For me as a know-nothing outsider the suggestion of Content Connector > Framework pointed me a bit towards what it does.
+1 from the peanut gallery. :) I had the same thought - part of my (also know-nothing outsider) knee-jerk issue with the ACF name is precisely that there are so many different kinds of "connector". As a side note re: Web Services in particular, I agree that it's not the greatest name and if we had the ability to do it again I think I'd have pushed against it. The WS PMC is certainly not the only place within Apache we do Web Services, but now that Axis is out of there and WS is evolving towards common framework components, it's somewhat better name-wise. > OpenContentConnectorFramework is descriptive but a bit long. OpenCCF? > > To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your > throat... Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since > you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly > broad Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since > you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word. > OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope > and includes a branding word. Just curious, why isn't "Content" just as much a "branding word" as "Open"? --Glen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
