On quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 14:58:12 PST Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > Protocol Project Application name > > HTTP Apache httpd > > OCF IoTivity iotivity (full?) > > not really. there is no "main application" for apache. in fact the apache > http server project is a project, not an app. apache is the organization, > which has many projects, none of which are "apache" afaik.
You and I know that it is the Apache Software Foundation that runs apache.org. The overall project is also simply called Apache (don't confuse it with the Foundation). And one of the applications there is simply called "httpd". But most people simply say "I run Apache" when they mean that they run Apache's httpd web server daemon. The other applications are usually referred by name, like Apache Tomcat. > Where does that leave iotivity-constrained? or other ocf implementations? i > think a better analogy is ietf or w3c: > > protocol: http > project: many (e.g. apache httpd) > implementation: many (at least 2, independent) This is also a valid analogy. > if iotivity is the organization, then it should do like apache and keep the > org separate from the projects. in particular it should not have just one > project called"iotivity", with a million different branches and repos for > different implementations. True. But again this is exactly the same problem that Apache project suffered: their first software was httpd, so people still refer to the organisation name when they mean the software. We'll suffer the same. But yes, we should figure out renaming the full implementation to a correct name. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
