On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:05 -0700, Sam Berlin wrote: > I _think_ that HttpClient implied too much client-side usage, whereas > the newer releases are going to include a server-side also. Gordon's > absolutely correct, though, that HttpClient owns search engines, and > that's not something that should be easily tossed aside. What about > something simple, like HttpClient & Server. HttpCS, for short.
Sam, I am afraid we will get buried if we mention "server" in any context but testing or experimental. Some think HTTP components / parts / primitives / nuts&bolts is already too ambitious for such a simple bunch of client side developers and moreover overlaps with other (read more prominent) projects Oleg > > Thanks > Sam > > On 8/26/05, Gordon Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I may have missed something -- but the answer doesn't seem to be in this > > thread. > > > > What's wrong with 'HttpClient'? > > > > FWIW, this project under its current name 'owns' the term 'HttpClient' > > via the major search engines; that's usually how I get to the > > project pages for news, source dumps, etc. > > > > If the aim is to make a broader name to also encompass additional > > related work, I would suggest some sort of extension to 'HttpClient' > > preserving it as a name token, like 'HttpClient Toolkit' or some such. > > > > - Gordon @ IA > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
