Re: About name change
I've added your suggestion to the list we are voting on. Karl On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > I'm on vacation and thus late with this, but if we want Connectors in the > name > and we want to "unambiguate" that, why not say what the Connectors are > connecting (to)? It's the Data(sources), no? If that's correct, Apache > Datasource Connectors may do. > > Otis > > Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch > Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > > > > - Original Message > > From: Karl Wright > > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 6:49:37 PM > > Subject: Re: About name change > > > > Huh. My vote post didn't make it either. The connectors-dev list must > be > > holding my posts for moderation or something. So I'll post it in-thread > as > > well, and hope that somebody fixes my email soon. > > > > I know this is un-Apache-like, but please respond to the following list > with > > a selection, in order, of the top three names for the project currently > > known as Apache Connectors Framework. The choices > > are: > > > > Apache Connectors Framework > > Apache Acromantula > > Apache Manifold > > Apache ManifoldCF > > Apache Multiplex > > Apache Lucon > > Apache Lukon > > Apache Yukon > > Apache Macon > > Apache Omni > > Apache Omnivore > > Apache CMCF (yes, I just invented that one ;-) ) > > Apache Multivore (yes, I just invented that one too. ;-) ) > > > > I don't think I missed any? If I did, chastise me severely please. ;-) > > > > Karl > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Karl Wright > wrote: > > > > > I hope to call a vote tonight, but my posting about that never made it > > > through for some reason. (I posted the same thing twice, too!). > Anyhow, > > > I'll include all of these in the list of candidates. It would be good > to > > > find out in advance if Apache Manifold is a possibility, though. That > would > > > be my first choice at the moment. > > > > > > Karl > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll > >wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > > >> > > >> > I, too like it. There's a problem though: > > >> > > > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System > > >> > > > >> > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get > somewhere > > >> by > > >> > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough > from > > >> > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? > > >> > > >> I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a > outside > > >> ruling on that. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very > > >> significant: > > >> > > >> This makes me think of movie theaters... > > >> > > >> > > > >> > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Karl > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll < > gsing...@apache.org > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or > Apache > > >> >> Manifold Conn. Framework. > > >> >> > > >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky > > >> acronyms > > >> >> and from Webster's: > > >> >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a > liquid or > > >> gas > > >> >> is distributed or gathered." -- > > >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold > > >> >> > > >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which > bits > > >> are > > >> >> gathered and distributed. > > >> >> > > >> >> -Grant > > >> >> > > >> >> > &
Re: About name change
I'm on vacation and thus late with this, but if we want Connectors in the name and we want to "unambiguate" that, why not say what the Connectors are connecting (to)? It's the Data(sources), no? If that's correct, Apache Datasource Connectors may do. Otis Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ - Original Message > From: Karl Wright > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 6:49:37 PM > Subject: Re: About name change > > Huh. My vote post didn't make it either. The connectors-dev list must be > holding my posts for moderation or something. So I'll post it in-thread as > well, and hope that somebody fixes my email soon. > > I know this is un-Apache-like, but please respond to the following list with > a selection, in order, of the top three names for the project currently > known as Apache Connectors Framework. The choices > are: > > Apache Connectors Framework > Apache Acromantula > Apache Manifold > Apache ManifoldCF > Apache Multiplex > Apache Lucon > Apache Lukon > Apache Yukon > Apache Macon > Apache Omni > Apache Omnivore > Apache CMCF (yes, I just invented that one ;-) ) > Apache Multivore (yes, I just invented that one too. ;-) ) > > I don't think I missed any? If I did, chastise me severely please. ;-) > > Karl > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > > > I hope to call a vote tonight, but my posting about that never made it > > through for some reason. (I posted the same thing twice, too!). Anyhow, > > I'll include all of these in the list of candidates. It would be good to > > find out in advance if Apache Manifold is a possibility, though. That would > > be my first choice at the moment. > > > > Karl > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll >wrote: > > > >> > >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> > >> > I, too like it. There's a problem though: > >> > > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System > >> > > >> > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere > >> by > >> > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from > >> > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? > >> > >> I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a outside > >> ruling on that. > >> > >> > > >> > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very > >> significant: > >> > >> This makes me think of movie theaters... > >> > >> > > >> > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php > >> > > >> > > >> > Karl > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache > >> >> Manifold Conn. Framework. > >> >> > >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky > >> acronyms > >> >> and from Webster's: > >> >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or > >> gas > >> >> is distributed or gathered." -- > >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold > >> >> > >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits > >> are > >> >> gathered and distributed. > >> >> > >> >> -Grant > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> >>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > >> >>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under > >> your > >> >>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the > >> field > >> >> up a > >> >>>> bit.) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Karl > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it > >> >>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of > >> >>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying > >> to > >> >>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly > >> fine > >> >>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come > >> >>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the > >> >>> Apache Connector Framework. > >> >>> > >> >>> - Mark > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Grant Ingersoll > >> >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct > >> 7-8 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> -- > >> Grant Ingersoll > >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 > >> > >> > > >
Re: About name change
Huh. My vote post didn't make it either. The connectors-dev list must be holding my posts for moderation or something. So I'll post it in-thread as well, and hope that somebody fixes my email soon. I know this is un-Apache-like, but please respond to the following list with a selection, in order, of the top three names for the project currently known as Apache Connectors Framework. The choices are: Apache Connectors Framework Apache Acromantula Apache Manifold Apache ManifoldCF Apache Multiplex Apache Lucon Apache Lukon Apache Yukon Apache Macon Apache Omni Apache Omnivore Apache CMCF (yes, I just invented that one ;-) ) Apache Multivore (yes, I just invented that one too. ;-) ) I don't think I missed any? If I did, chastise me severely please. ;-) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > I hope to call a vote tonight, but my posting about that never made it > through for some reason. (I posted the same thing twice, too!). Anyhow, > I'll include all of these in the list of candidates. It would be good to > find out in advance if Apache Manifold is a possibility, though. That would > be my first choice at the moment. > > Karl > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >> > I, too like it. There's a problem though: >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System >> > >> > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere >> by >> > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from >> > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? >> >> I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a outside >> ruling on that. >> >> > >> > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very >> significant: >> >> This makes me think of movie theaters... >> >> > >> > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php >> > >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll > >wrote: >> > >> >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >> >> Manifold Conn. Framework. >> >> >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky >> acronyms >> >> and from Webster's: >> >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >> gas >> >> is distributed or gathered." -- >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >> >> >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >> are >> >> gathered and distributed. >> >> >> >> -Grant >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >> your >> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the >> field >> >> up a >> bit.) >> >> Karl >> >> >>> >> >>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >> >>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >> >>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying >> to >> >>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly >> fine >> >>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >> >>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >> >>> Apache Connector Framework. >> >>> >> >>> - Mark >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Grant Ingersoll >> >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct >> 7-8 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >> >> >
Re: About name change -- Lucon, Lukon
Omnivore, perhaps? A little more findable... Of course, now the humorist in me tries to extend this in obviously wrong directions, like "Apache Yardsale" and "Apache VacuumCleaner". ;-) Tying to Lucene seems like not quite the right idea, in my view, but we can vote on it. Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > To increase findability, how about Lucon or Lukon - Lu[cene] + con[nector] > or "k" for Karl. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -- > From: "Grant Ingersoll" > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:25 AM > To: > Subject: Re: About name change -- Acromantula > > Maybe we should just ask Doug Cutting's kid to come up with a name ;-) >> >> FWIW, we should also think about names that are findable. Omni is likely >> to be buried in any search engine >> >> Of course, it's easy to be the critic, much harder to come up with a good >> suggestion. >> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >> "Ackromantyoola." >>> >>> I think JK got the name from somewhere else anyhow, so there's prior art >>> involved. ;-) >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jack Krupansky < >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> >>> Brand names are better when they are less purely descriptive or simply >>>> indirectly descriptive. >>>> >>>> I'm okay with Acromantula if people want it, especially since it seems >>>> to >>>> adhere to all the Apache guidelines, but since I am unable to pronounce >>>> it, >>>> I would be able to promote it via "word of mouth"! >>>> >>>> Or, might J. K. Rowling sue us for stealing her work? >>>> >>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Karl Wright" >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM >>>> To: >>>> Subject: Re: About name change -- Macon >>>> >>>> I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it >>>> >>>>> terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. >>>>> Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: >>>>> >>>>> http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula >>>>> >>>>> (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) >>>>> >>>>> Karl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < >>>>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>>> dirigible airship. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> From: "Grant Ingersoll" >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM >>>>>> To: >>>>>> Subject: Re: About name change >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >>>>>> >>>>>> Manifold Conn. Framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky >>>>>>> acronyms >>>>>>> and from Webster's: >>>>>>> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which >>>>>>> bits >>>>>>> are gathered and distributed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Grant >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the >>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>> up a >>>>>>>>> bit.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>>>>>>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly >>>>>>>> fine >>>>>>>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>>>>>>> Apache Connector Framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Mark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston >>>>>>> Oct >>>>>>> 7-8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >> >>
Re: About name change
I hope to call a vote tonight, but my posting about that never made it through for some reason. (I posted the same thing twice, too!). Anyhow, I'll include all of these in the list of candidates. It would be good to find out in advance if Apache Manifold is a possibility, though. That would be my first choice at the moment. Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > > > I, too like it. There's a problem though: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System > > > > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere > by > > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from > > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? > > I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a outside > ruling on that. > > > > > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: > > This makes me think of movie theaters... > > > > > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php > > > > > > Karl > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll >wrote: > > > >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache > >> Manifold Conn. Framework. > >> > >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms > >> and from Webster's: > >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or > gas > >> is distributed or gathered." -- > >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold > >> > >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits > are > >> gathered and distributed. > >> > >> -Grant > >> > >> > >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> > >>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under > your > guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the > field > >> up a > bit.) > > Karl > > >>> > >>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it > >>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of > >>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to > >>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly > fine > >>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come > >>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the > >>> Apache Connector Framework. > >>> > >>> - Mark > >> > >> -- > >> Grant Ingersoll > >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct > 7-8 > >> > >> > > -- > Grant Ingersoll > http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 > >
Re: About name change -- Lucon, Lukon
To increase findability, how about Lucon or Lukon - Lu[cene] + con[nector] or "k" for Karl. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Grant Ingersoll" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:25 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change -- Acromantula Maybe we should just ask Doug Cutting's kid to come up with a name ;-) FWIW, we should also think about names that are findable. Omni is likely to be buried in any search engine Of course, it's easy to be the critic, much harder to come up with a good suggestion. On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Karl Wright wrote: "Ackromantyoola." I think JK got the name from somewhere else anyhow, so there's prior art involved. ;-) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: Brand names are better when they are less purely descriptive or simply indirectly descriptive. I'm okay with Acromantula if people want it, especially since it seems to adhere to all the Apache guidelines, but since I am unable to pronounce it, I would be able to promote it via "word of mouth"! Or, might J. K. Rowling sue us for stealing her work? -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Karl Wright" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change -- Macon I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a dirigible airship. -- Jack Krupansky ---------- From: "Grant Ingersoll" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache Manifold Conn. Framework. Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms and from Webster's: "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered." -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are gathered and distributed. -Grant On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.) Karl From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the Apache Connector Framework. - Mark -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
Technically, the official name would be "Apache Manifold" anyway. The "Apache" always gets prefixed. Even Yukon may be okay since it would actually be "Apache Yukon". In short, we don't need to propose "Apache" as part of what we vote on since that will automatically get added, I think. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Grant Ingersoll" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:12 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: I, too like it. There's a problem though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere by using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a outside ruling on that. FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: This makes me think of movie theaters... http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache Manifold Conn. Framework. Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms and from Webster's: "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered." -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are gathered and distributed. -Grant On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.) Karl From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the Apache Connector Framework. - Mark -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change -- Acromantula
Maybe we should just ask Doug Cutting's kid to come up with a name ;-) FWIW, we should also think about names that are findable. Omni is likely to be buried in any search engine Of course, it's easy to be the critic, much harder to come up with a good suggestion. On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > "Ackromantyoola." > > I think JK got the name from somewhere else anyhow, so there's prior art > involved. ;-) > > Karl > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jack Krupansky < > jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >> Brand names are better when they are less purely descriptive or simply >> indirectly descriptive. >> >> I'm okay with Acromantula if people want it, especially since it seems to >> adhere to all the Apache guidelines, but since I am unable to pronounce it, >> I would be able to promote it via "word of mouth"! >> >> Or, might J. K. Rowling sue us for stealing her work? >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> ------ >> From: "Karl Wright" >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM >> To: >> Subject: Re: About name change -- Macon >> >> I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it >>> terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. >>> Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: >>> >>> http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula >>> >>> (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> >>> How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a >>>> dirigible airship. >>>> >>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Grant Ingersoll" >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM >>>> To: >>>> Subject: Re: About name change >>>> >>>> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >>>> >>>>> Manifold Conn. Framework. >>>>> >>>>> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >>>>> and from Webster's: >>>>> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >>>>> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >>>>> >>>>> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >>>>> are gathered and distributed. >>>>> >>>>> -Grant >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>>>>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the >>>>>>> field >>>>>>> up a >>>>>>> bit.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>>>>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>>>>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>>>>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly >>>>>> fine >>>>>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>>>>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>>>>> Apache Connector Framework. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct >>>>> 7-8 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change -- Macon
On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:01 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it > terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. > Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: > > http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula I don't personally like it. There are enough HP software names out there, IMO and I think it is non-obvious how to pronounce it. > > (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) > > Karl > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < > jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >> How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a >> dirigible airship. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> ---------- >> From: "Grant Ingersoll" >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM >> To: >> Subject: Re: About name change >> >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >>> Manifold Conn. Framework. >>> >>> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >>> and from Webster's: >>> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >>> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >>> >>> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >>> are gathered and distributed. >>> >>> -Grant >>> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >>> >>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your >>>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field >>>>> up a >>>>> bit.) >>>>> >>>>> Karl >>>>> >>>>> >>>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine >>>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>>> Apache Connector Framework. >>>> >>>> - Mark >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Grant Ingersoll >>> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >>> >>> -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > I, too like it. There's a problem though: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System > > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere by > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? I think ManifoldCF is distinct enough, I think, but we may need a outside ruling on that. > > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: This makes me think of movie theaters... > > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php > > > Karl > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >> Manifold Conn. Framework. >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >> and from Webster's: >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas >> is distributed or gathered." -- >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are >> gathered and distributed. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field >> up a bit.) Karl >>> >>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine >>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>> Apache Connector Framework. >>> >>> - Mark >> >> -- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >> >> -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change -- Acromantula
"Ackromantyoola." I think JK got the name from somewhere else anyhow, so there's prior art involved. ;-) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > Brand names are better when they are less purely descriptive or simply > indirectly descriptive. > > I'm okay with Acromantula if people want it, especially since it seems to > adhere to all the Apache guidelines, but since I am unable to pronounce it, > I would be able to promote it via "word of mouth"! > > Or, might J. K. Rowling sue us for stealing her work? > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -- > From: "Karl Wright" > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM > To: > Subject: Re: About name change -- Macon > > I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it >> terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. >> Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: >> >> http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula >> >> (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) >> >> Karl >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < >> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >> >> How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a >>> dirigible airship. >>> >>> -- Jack Krupansky >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Grant Ingersoll" >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: About name change >>> >>> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >>> >>>> Manifold Conn. Framework. >>>> >>>> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >>>> and from Webster's: >>>> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >>>> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >>>> >>>> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >>>> are gathered and distributed. >>>> >>>> -Grant >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>>>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >>>>>> your >>>>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the >>>>>> field >>>>>> up a >>>>>> bit.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Karl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>>>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>>>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>>>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly >>>>> fine >>>>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>>>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>>>> Apache Connector Framework. >>>>> >>>>> - Mark >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct >>>> 7-8 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
Re: About name change -- Acromantula
Brand names are better when they are less purely descriptive or simply indirectly descriptive. I'm okay with Acromantula if people want it, especially since it seems to adhere to all the Apache guidelines, but since I am unable to pronounce it, I would be able to promote it via "word of mouth"! Or, might J. K. Rowling sue us for stealing her work? -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Karl Wright" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change -- Macon I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a dirigible airship. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Grant Ingersoll" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache Manifold Conn. Framework. Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms and from Webster's: "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered." -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are gathered and distributed. -Grant On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.) Karl From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the Apache Connector Framework. - Mark -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
Simon suggests "Apache Omni", which I also like, and which does not appear to be common in software packages (although there is a company called the "Omni Group", apparently). Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > Hah. If I'd scrolled past the German, I would have realized that the > "Multiplex" this refers to is in fact a piece of hardware, so I think we'd > be OK with this one. > > Karl > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> I, too like it. There's a problem though: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System >> >> Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere >> by using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from >> "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? >> >> FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: >> >> http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php >> >> >> Karl >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> >>> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >>> Manifold Conn. Framework. >>> >>> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >>> and from Webster's: >>> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >>> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >>> >>> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >>> are gathered and distributed. >>> >>> -Grant >>> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >>> >>> > On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> >> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>> >> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >>> your >>> >> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the >>> field up a >>> >> bit.) >>> >> >>> >> Karl >>> >> >>> > >>> > From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>> > should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>> > having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>> > follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly >>> fine >>> > with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>> > to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>> > Apache Connector Framework. >>> > >>> > - Mark >>> >>> -- >>> Grant Ingersoll >>> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct >>> 7-8 >>> >>> >> >
Re: About name change -- Macon
I don't find any obvious software uses of the name. I don't find it terribly descriptive though - multiplex/manifold wins in my opinion. Acromantula is also available and is more descriptive: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Acromantula (if you don't mind the HP references. ;-) ) Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jack Krupansky < jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a > dirigible airship. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -- > From: "Grant Ingersoll" > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM > To: > Subject: Re: About name change > > Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >> Manifold Conn. Framework. >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >> and from Webster's: >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >> are gathered and distributed. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >>>> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your >>>> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field >>>> up a >>>> bit.) >>>> >>>> Karl >>>> >>>> >>> From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >>> should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >>> having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >>> follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine >>> with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >>> to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >>> Apache Connector Framework. >>> >>> - Mark >>> >> >> -- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >> >>
Re: About name change
Hah. If I'd scrolled past the German, I would have realized that the "Multiplex" this refers to is in fact a piece of hardware, so I think we'd be OK with this one. Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > I, too like it. There's a problem though: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System > > Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere by > using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from > "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? > > FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: > > http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php > > > Karl > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache >> Manifold Conn. Framework. >> >> Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms >> and from Webster's: >> "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or >> gas is distributed or gathered." -- >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold >> >> Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits >> are gathered and distributed. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> > On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >> >> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under >> your >> >> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field >> up a >> >> bit.) >> >> >> >> Karl >> >> >> > >> > From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it >> > should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of >> > having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to >> > follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine >> > with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come >> > to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the >> > Apache Connector Framework. >> > >> > - Mark >> >> -- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 >> >> >
Re: About name change -- Macon
How about Macon... from Mac[hinery] + con[nection]. A small city, also a dirigible airship. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Grant Ingersoll" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: Subject: Re: About name change Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache Manifold Conn. Framework. Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms and from Webster's: "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered." -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are gathered and distributed. -Grant On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.) Karl From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the Apache Connector Framework. - Mark -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
I, too like it. There's a problem though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_System Other similar possibilities include Multiplex, or maybe we get somewhere by using ManifoldCF? Or maybe "Apache Manifold" is different enough from "Manifold System" to be distinguishable? FWIW, Multiplex is also used, but it doesn't seem to be very significant: http://mc3030.heim1.de/english.php Karl On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache > Manifold Conn. Framework. > > Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms > and from Webster's: > "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas > is distributed or gathered." -- > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold > > Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are > gathered and distributed. > > -Grant > > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > > > On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > >> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your > >> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field > up a > >> bit.) > >> > >> Karl > >> > > > > From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it > > should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of > > having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to > > follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine > > with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come > > to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the > > Apache Connector Framework. > > > > - Mark > > -- > Grant Ingersoll > http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 > >
Re: About name change
Apache Manifold is growing on me. And/or Apache Manifold CF or Apache Manifold Conn. Framework. Has a nice short name, easy to pronounce, doesn't require funky acronyms and from Webster's: "Machinery . a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered." -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Manifold Paraphrased, it's a a chamber having several outlets through which bits are gathered and distributed. -Grant On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) >> Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your >> guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a >> bit.) >> >> Karl >> > > From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it > should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of > having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to > follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine > with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come > to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the > Apache Connector Framework. > > - Mark -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
On 8/30/10 5:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your > guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a > bit.) > > Karl > >From my end, most of that was off topic haggling - I'm not saying it should be one way or other per seh. I personally see the benefit of having a good unique word in the name of the project - and of trying to follow the guidelines / feel of previous projects. I'd be perfectly fine with something like Apache Manifold Connector Framework. But push come to shove I wouldn't even vote against keeping things as is with the Apache Connector Framework. - Mark
Re: About name change
Yeah, I'd like to, but the incubator folks don't like it. So we are exploring other options. Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Matt Weber wrote: > Why not just stick with Apache Connector Framework? After all, that > is exactly what this is... a connector framework. It has a short and > simple acronym, ACF, and best of all requires no additional effort, no > refactoring, no website updates, etc! Just my $0.02, not that it > really matters > > -- > Thanks, > Matt Weber > > 2:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > > Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your > > guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field > up a > > bit.) > > > > Karl > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Mark Miller > wrote: > > > >> Heh - only with an extremely liberal definition of multiword. The list > >> really speaks for itself here. > >> > >> > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are > multiple > >> > projects) > >> > > >> > >> They are each a single top level project with many sub projects. > >> > >> On 8/30/10 5:06 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> > Ok, let's do a count. > >> > > >> > Single word: 49 > >> > Multiword: 26 > >> > > >> > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are > multiple > >> > projects) > >> > > >> > Karl > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if > you > >> >> look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) > >> >> > >> >> On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> >>> TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* > of > >> >> names > >> >>> that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > >> >>> > >> >>> Karl > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller > > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of > >> existing > >> > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name > "Apache > >> >> Foo > >> > Pipelines". -snip > >> > > >> > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this > >> >> would > >> > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. > >> > >> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are > meant > >> to > >> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not > >> mandatory. > >> > >> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for > subprojects > >> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique > >> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be > descriptive > >> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract > >> 'component' > >> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines > are > >> not met very well. > >> > >> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a > >> pattern > >> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using > simply > >> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). > This > >> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues > >> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than > one > >> word for the name is extremely uncommon. > >> > >> HTTP Server > >> Abdera > >> ActiveMQ > >> Ant > >> APR > >> Archiva > >> Avro > >> Buildr > >> Camel > >> Cassandra > >> Cayenne > >> Click > >> Cocoon > >> Commons > >> Continuum > >> CouchDB > >> CXF > >> DB > >> Directory > >> Excalibur > >> Felix > >> Forrest > >> Geronimo > >> Gump > >> Hadoop > >> Harmony > >> HBase > >> HttpComponents > >> Jackrabbit > >> Jakarta > >> James > >> Lenya > >> Logging > >> Lucene > >> Mahout > >> Maven > >> Mina > >> MyFaces > >> Nutch > >> ODE > >> OFBiz > >> OpenEJB > >> OpenJPA > >> OpenWebBeans > >> PDFBox > >> Perl > >> Pivot > >> POI > >> Portals > >> Qpid > >> Roller > >> Santuario > >> ServiceMix > >> Shindig > >> Sling > >> SpamAssassin > >> STDCXX > >> Struts > >> Subversion > >> Synapse > >> Tapestry > >> Tika > >> TCL > >> Tiles > >> Tomcat > >> TrafficServer > >> Turbine > >> Tuscany > >> UIMA > >> Velocity > >> Wicket > >> Web Services > >> Xalan > >> Xerces > >> XML > >> XMLBeans > >> XML Graphics > >> > >> > > >> > Karl > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller < > markrm
Re: About name change
Why not just stick with Apache Connector Framework? After all, that is exactly what this is... a connector framework. It has a short and simple acronym, ACF, and best of all requires no additional effort, no refactoring, no website updates, etc! Just my $0.02, not that it really matters -- Thanks, Matt Weber 2:20 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) > Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your > guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a > bit.) > > Karl > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> Heh - only with an extremely liberal definition of multiword. The list >> really speaks for itself here. >> >> > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple >> > projects) >> > >> >> They are each a single top level project with many sub projects. >> >> On 8/30/10 5:06 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> > Ok, let's do a count. >> > >> > Single word: 49 >> > Multiword: 26 >> > >> > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple >> > projects) >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller >> wrote: >> > >> >> Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you >> >> look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) >> >> >> >> On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of >> >> names >> >>> that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) >> >>> >> >>> Karl >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of >> existing >> > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache >> >> Foo >> > Pipelines". -snip >> > >> > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this >> >> would >> > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. >> >> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant >> to >> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not >> mandatory. >> >> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects >> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique >> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive >> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract >> 'component' >> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are >> not met very well. >> >> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a >> pattern >> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply >> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This >> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues >> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one >> word for the name is extremely uncommon. >> >> HTTP Server >> Abdera >> ActiveMQ >> Ant >> APR >> Archiva >> Avro >> Buildr >> Camel >> Cassandra >> Cayenne >> Click >> Cocoon >> Commons >> Continuum >> CouchDB >> CXF >> DB >> Directory >> Excalibur >> Felix >> Forrest >> Geronimo >> Gump >> Hadoop >> Harmony >> HBase >> HttpComponents >> Jackrabbit >> Jakarta >> James >> Lenya >> Logging >> Lucene >> Mahout >> Maven >> Mina >> MyFaces >> Nutch >> ODE >> OFBiz >> OpenEJB >> OpenJPA >> OpenWebBeans >> PDFBox >> Perl >> Pivot >> POI >> Portals >> Qpid >> Roller >> Santuario >> ServiceMix >> Shindig >> Sling >> SpamAssassin >> STDCXX >> Struts >> Subversion >> Synapse >> Tapestry >> Tika >> TCL >> Tiles >> Tomcat >> TrafficServer >> Turbine >> Tuscany >> UIMA >> Velocity >> Wicket >> Web Services >> Xalan >> Xerces >> XML >> XMLBeans >> XML Graphics >> >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless >> for >> me. >> >> >> >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) >> - >> >> not really buying it would be a problem here. >> >> >> >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed >> it >> >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html >> >>>
Re: About name change
I suspect those multi-word names kind of sneaked in without the naming police having a chance to point out the naming guidelines early in the project process. For the record, I am okay with XYZ Open Connectors Framework or XYZ Content Connectors Framework or XYZ Connectors Framework as the full name, with XYZ as the official Apache name (or "handle" as I call it), where XYZ is a placeholder for a name as yet to be determined. And "Apache" gets stuck on the front of the name, by convention. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Karl Wright" Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:50 PM To: Subject: Re: About name change TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of names that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote: On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of existing > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache > Foo > Pipelines". -snip > > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this > would > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are not met very well. Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one word for the name is extremely uncommon. HTTP Server Abdera ActiveMQ Ant APR Archiva Avro Buildr Camel Cassandra Cayenne Click Cocoon Commons Continuum CouchDB CXF DB Directory Excalibur Felix Forrest Geronimo Gump Hadoop Harmony HBase HttpComponents Jackrabbit Jakarta James Lenya Logging Lucene Mahout Maven Mina MyFaces Nutch ODE OFBiz OpenEJB OpenJPA OpenWebBeans PDFBox Perl Pivot POI Portals Qpid Roller Santuario ServiceMix Shindig Sling SpamAssassin STDCXX Struts Subversion Synapse Tapestry Tika TCL Tiles Tomcat TrafficServer Turbine Tuscany UIMA Velocity Wicket Web Services Xalan Xerces XML XMLBeans XML Graphics > > Karl > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. >> >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - >> not really buying it would be a problem here. >> >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html >> >> - Mark >> >> >
Re: About name change
I'm not going to go head-to-head with you trying to split hairs. ;-) Can we agree that something like "ContentCF" is a possibility under your guidelines? (I'm not proposing that, I'm just trying to open the field up a bit.) Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Heh - only with an extremely liberal definition of multiword. The list > really speaks for itself here. > > > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > > projects) > > > > They are each a single top level project with many sub projects. > > On 8/30/10 5:06 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > Ok, let's do a count. > > > > Single word: 49 > > Multiword: 26 > > > > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > > projects) > > > > Karl > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller > wrote: > > > >> Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you > >> look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) > >> > >> On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>> TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of > >> names > >>> that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller > >> wrote: > >>> > On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of > existing > > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache > >> Foo > > Pipelines". -snip > > > > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this > >> would > > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. > > FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant > to > determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not > mandatory. > > It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects > of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique > simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive > for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract > 'component' > of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are > not met very well. > > Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a > pattern > - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply > the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This > isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues > factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one > word for the name is extremely uncommon. > > HTTP Server > Abdera > ActiveMQ > Ant > APR > Archiva > Avro > Buildr > Camel > Cassandra > Cayenne > Click > Cocoon > Commons > Continuum > CouchDB > CXF > DB > Directory > Excalibur > Felix > Forrest > Geronimo > Gump > Hadoop > Harmony > HBase > HttpComponents > Jackrabbit > Jakarta > James > Lenya > Logging > Lucene > Mahout > Maven > Mina > MyFaces > Nutch > ODE > OFBiz > OpenEJB > OpenJPA > OpenWebBeans > PDFBox > Perl > Pivot > POI > Portals > Qpid > Roller > Santuario > ServiceMix > Shindig > Sling > SpamAssassin > STDCXX > Struts > Subversion > Synapse > Tapestry > Tika > TCL > Tiles > Tomcat > TrafficServer > Turbine > Tuscany > UIMA > Velocity > Wicket > Web Services > Xalan > Xerces > XML > XMLBeans > XML Graphics > > > > > Karl > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller > wrote: > > > >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless > for > me. > >> > >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) > - > >> not really buying it would be a problem here. > >> > >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed > it > >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html > >> > >> - Mark > >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
Re: About name change
The guiding principle I'm trying adopt here is having something reasonably descriptive and yet abstract. A completely abstract name works fine for me, provided that it typically appears in a context that lets people know a bit about what it does, e.g.: Name: Apache Acromantula How it often appears: "When you install the Apache Acromantula connectors framework..." The short handle: ACF, or AA if you want to be a purist (I'm flexible myself) So, technically, the name is one word, and its usage can involve other words consistently that clarify it. So I believe we can agree that this approach is a good possibility. What names of this kind do you want to propose? I did kind-of like some of the proposals on the general@ list... Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > > I'm sure nobody will have a cow. Or, at > > least not a very large one. ;-) > > > > Karl > > > Right, but that's not a very good guiding principle for choosing an > apache project name - nobody will have a cow. And yes, pretty much > everyone I have ever heard talk about Lucene, calls it Lucene rather > than the Lucene search engine :) But again, that's also completey > besides the point of the guidelines for a good name even if it was true. > The key word would be Lucene - putting anything after that will be > generally fine - the Lucene component does all the heavy lifting for the > naming goodness. > > - Mark >
Re: About name change
Heh - only with an extremely liberal definition of multiword. The list really speaks for itself here. > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > projects) > They are each a single top level project with many sub projects. On 8/30/10 5:06 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Ok, let's do a count. > > Single word: 49 > Multiword: 26 > > (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple > projects) > > Karl > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you >> look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) >> >> On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of >> names >>> that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller >> wrote: >>> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of existing > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache >> Foo > Pipelines". -snip > > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this >> would > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are not met very well. Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one word for the name is extremely uncommon. HTTP Server Abdera ActiveMQ Ant APR Archiva Avro Buildr Camel Cassandra Cayenne Click Cocoon Commons Continuum CouchDB CXF DB Directory Excalibur Felix Forrest Geronimo Gump Hadoop Harmony HBase HttpComponents Jackrabbit Jakarta James Lenya Logging Lucene Mahout Maven Mina MyFaces Nutch ODE OFBiz OpenEJB OpenJPA OpenWebBeans PDFBox Perl Pivot POI Portals Qpid Roller Santuario ServiceMix Shindig Sling SpamAssassin STDCXX Struts Subversion Synapse Tapestry Tika TCL Tiles Tomcat TrafficServer Turbine Tuscany UIMA Velocity Wicket Web Services Xalan Xerces XML XMLBeans XML Graphics > > Karl > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. >> >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - >> not really buying it would be a problem here. >> >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html >> >> - Mark >> >> > >>> >> >> >
Re: About name change
Ok, let's do a count. Single word: 49 Multiword: 26 (I'm not including commons or jakarta in this, because they are multiple projects) Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you > look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) > > On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of > names > > that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > > > > Karl > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller > wrote: > > > >> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>> snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of > >> existing > >>> projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache > Foo > >>> Pipelines". -snip > >>> > >>> Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this > would > >>> imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. > >> > >> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to > >> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. > >> > >> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects > >> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique > >> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive > >> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' > >> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are > >> not met very well. > >> > >> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern > >> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply > >> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This > >> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues > >> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one > >> word for the name is extremely uncommon. > >> > >> HTTP Server > >> Abdera > >> ActiveMQ > >> Ant > >> APR > >> Archiva > >> Avro > >> Buildr > >> Camel > >> Cassandra > >> Cayenne > >> Click > >> Cocoon > >> Commons > >> Continuum > >> CouchDB > >> CXF > >> DB > >> Directory > >> Excalibur > >> Felix > >> Forrest > >> Geronimo > >> Gump > >> Hadoop > >> Harmony > >> HBase > >> HttpComponents > >> Jackrabbit > >> Jakarta > >> James > >> Lenya > >> Logging > >> Lucene > >> Mahout > >> Maven > >> Mina > >> MyFaces > >> Nutch > >> ODE > >> OFBiz > >> OpenEJB > >> OpenJPA > >> OpenWebBeans > >> PDFBox > >> Perl > >> Pivot > >> POI > >> Portals > >> Qpid > >> Roller > >> Santuario > >> ServiceMix > >> Shindig > >> Sling > >> SpamAssassin > >> STDCXX > >> Struts > >> Subversion > >> Synapse > >> Tapestry > >> Tika > >> TCL > >> Tiles > >> Tomcat > >> TrafficServer > >> Turbine > >> Tuscany > >> UIMA > >> Velocity > >> Wicket > >> Web Services > >> Xalan > >> Xerces > >> XML > >> XMLBeans > >> XML Graphics > >> > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller > >> wrote: > >>> > On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > > I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for > >> me. > > It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - > not really buying it would be a problem here. > > Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it > out yet, fyi on some recommendations: > http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html > > - Mark > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
Re: About name change
> I'm sure nobody will have a cow. Or, at > least not a very large one. ;-) > > Karl Right, but that's not a very good guiding principle for choosing an apache project name - nobody will have a cow. And yes, pretty much everyone I have ever heard talk about Lucene, calls it Lucene rather than the Lucene search engine :) But again, that's also completey besides the point of the guidelines for a good name even if it was true. The key word would be Lucene - putting anything after that will be generally fine - the Lucene component does all the heavy lifting for the naming goodness. - Mark
Re: About name change
Right - mashed together into one word - not multiple words. And if you look, it's not even a 'lot' without the bold around it ;) On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of names > that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > > Karl > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of >> existing >>> projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache Foo >>> Pipelines". -snip >>> >>> Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this would >>> imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. >> >> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to >> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. >> >> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects >> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique >> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive >> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' >> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are >> not met very well. >> >> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern >> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply >> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This >> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues >> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one >> word for the name is extremely uncommon. >> >> HTTP Server >> Abdera >> ActiveMQ >> Ant >> APR >> Archiva >> Avro >> Buildr >> Camel >> Cassandra >> Cayenne >> Click >> Cocoon >> Commons >> Continuum >> CouchDB >> CXF >> DB >> Directory >> Excalibur >> Felix >> Forrest >> Geronimo >> Gump >> Hadoop >> Harmony >> HBase >> HttpComponents >> Jackrabbit >> Jakarta >> James >> Lenya >> Logging >> Lucene >> Mahout >> Maven >> Mina >> MyFaces >> Nutch >> ODE >> OFBiz >> OpenEJB >> OpenJPA >> OpenWebBeans >> PDFBox >> Perl >> Pivot >> POI >> Portals >> Qpid >> Roller >> Santuario >> ServiceMix >> Shindig >> Sling >> SpamAssassin >> STDCXX >> Struts >> Subversion >> Synapse >> Tapestry >> Tika >> TCL >> Tiles >> Tomcat >> TrafficServer >> Turbine >> Tuscany >> UIMA >> Velocity >> Wicket >> Web Services >> Xalan >> Xerces >> XML >> XMLBeans >> XML Graphics >> >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller >> wrote: >>> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for >> me. It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - not really buying it would be a problem here. Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it out yet, fyi on some recommendations: http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html - Mark >>> >> >> >
Re: About name change
However, perhaps the name and its usage differ quite a lot in practice? I am sure that Lucene is often called "Lucene Search Engine", for example. If the "apache name" is XXX, and most usage in the documentation or on the site refers to XXX Connectors Framework, I'm sure nobody will have a cow. Or, at least not a very large one. ;-) Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of > names that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) > > Karl > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of >> existing >> > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache Foo >> > Pipelines". -snip >> > >> > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this would >> > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. >> >> FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to >> determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. >> >> It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects >> of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique >> simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive >> for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' >> of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are >> not met very well. >> >> Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern >> - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply >> the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This >> isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues >> factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one >> word for the name is extremely uncommon. >> >> HTTP Server >> Abdera >> ActiveMQ >> Ant >> APR >> Archiva >> Avro >> Buildr >> Camel >> Cassandra >> Cayenne >> Click >> Cocoon >> Commons >> Continuum >> CouchDB >> CXF >> DB >> Directory >> Excalibur >> Felix >> Forrest >> Geronimo >> Gump >> Hadoop >> Harmony >> HBase >> HttpComponents >> Jackrabbit >> Jakarta >> James >> Lenya >> Logging >> Lucene >> Mahout >> Maven >> Mina >> MyFaces >> Nutch >> ODE >> OFBiz >> OpenEJB >> OpenJPA >> OpenWebBeans >> PDFBox >> Perl >> Pivot >> POI >> Portals >> Qpid >> Roller >> Santuario >> ServiceMix >> Shindig >> Sling >> SpamAssassin >> STDCXX >> Struts >> Subversion >> Synapse >> Tapestry >> Tika >> TCL >> Tiles >> Tomcat >> TrafficServer >> Turbine >> Tuscany >> UIMA >> Velocity >> Wicket >> Web Services >> Xalan >> Xerces >> XML >> XMLBeans >> XML Graphics >> >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for >> me. >> >> >> >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - >> >> not really buying it would be a problem here. >> >> >> >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it >> >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html >> >> >> >> - Mark >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
Re: About name change
TrafficServer? OpenWebBeans? XMLBeans? There are actually a *lot* of names that are multiple words. They're just mashed together. ;-) Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of > existing > > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache Foo > > Pipelines". -snip > > > > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this would > > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. > > FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to > determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. > > It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects > of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique > simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive > for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' > of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are > not met very well. > > Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern > - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply > the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This > isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues > factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one > word for the name is extremely uncommon. > > HTTP Server > Abdera > ActiveMQ > Ant > APR > Archiva > Avro > Buildr > Camel > Cassandra > Cayenne > Click > Cocoon > Commons > Continuum > CouchDB > CXF > DB > Directory > Excalibur > Felix > Forrest > Geronimo > Gump > Hadoop > Harmony > HBase > HttpComponents > Jackrabbit > Jakarta > James > Lenya > Logging > Lucene > Mahout > Maven > Mina > MyFaces > Nutch > ODE > OFBiz > OpenEJB > OpenJPA > OpenWebBeans > PDFBox > Perl > Pivot > POI > Portals > Qpid > Roller > Santuario > ServiceMix > Shindig > Sling > SpamAssassin > STDCXX > Struts > Subversion > Synapse > Tapestry > Tika > TCL > Tiles > Tomcat > TrafficServer > Turbine > Tuscany > UIMA > Velocity > Wicket > Web Services > Xalan > Xerces > XML > XMLBeans > XML Graphics > > > > > Karl > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller > wrote: > > > >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for > me. > >> > >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - > >> not really buying it would be a problem here. > >> > >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it > >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html > >> > >> - Mark > >> > >> > > > >
Re: About name change
On 8/30/10 1:37 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of existing > projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache Foo > Pipelines". -snip > > Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this would > imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. FYI, these are listed as guidelines, so I don't think they are meant to determine what is OK or not. A guideline is by definition not mandatory. It would seem to me that the reason this is emphasized for subprojects of foo even more so than foo, is that foo will already be a unique simple abstract name. After you have that, it's best to be descriptive for sub projects. If you don't have a unique simple abstract 'component' of the name for a top level project, many of the other guidelines are not met very well. Below are some current Apache project names - you start to see a pattern - notice that most of them will be the top hit on google using simply the name (yes, including ant, tiles and felix surprisingly ;) ). This isn't always the case of course - many different historical issues factor into these names - but as you can see - even just more than one word for the name is extremely uncommon. HTTP Server Abdera ActiveMQ Ant APR Archiva Avro Buildr Camel Cassandra Cayenne Click Cocoon Commons Continuum CouchDB CXF DB Directory Excalibur Felix Forrest Geronimo Gump Hadoop Harmony HBase HttpComponents Jackrabbit Jakarta James Lenya Logging Lucene Mahout Maven Mina MyFaces Nutch ODE OFBiz OpenEJB OpenJPA OpenWebBeans PDFBox Perl Pivot POI Portals Qpid Roller Santuario ServiceMix Shindig Sling SpamAssassin STDCXX Struts Subversion Synapse Tapestry Tika TCL Tiles Tomcat TrafficServer Turbine Tuscany UIMA Velocity Wicket Web Services Xalan Xerces XML XMLBeans XML Graphics > > Karl > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. >> >> It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - >> not really buying it would be a problem here. >> >> Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it >> out yet, fyi on some recommendations: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html >> >> - Mark >> >> >
Re: About name change
I know what you meant. For me, anyway, the choices don't slice cleanly
along that dimension. e.g., I'd vote for a combination first, a purely
descriptive name second, and an abstract name third.
FWIW, this would be my vote in order of preference (with the current Apache
Connectors Framework implicitly preceding this):
Apache Acromantula Connectors Framework
Apache CM Connectors Framework
Apache Manifold
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jack Krupansky <
jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> I meant decide the abstract vs. descriptive issue first. Whether we need to
> decide to vote whether to hold a vote on that or just vote immediately on
> the abstract vs. descriptive question. Either way is fine with me. I'd
> prefer to hold off on deciding the exact name until the abstract vs.
> descriptive issue is resolved.
>
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --
> From: "Karl Wright"
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:20 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
> I think we should vote directly. Perhaps we can save time by supplying
>> our
>> top three choices, in order.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Jack Krupansky <
>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the first order of business should be to decide whether the name
>>> is
>>> going to be descriptive or abstract. Exactly what that abstract name or
>>> descriptive name is should be the second order of business, I think. Some
>>> might disagree, but I don't think the first decision should be predicated
>>> on
>>> the exact list of name choices for the second decision.
>>>
>>> Should there be a vote on whether to vote for abstract vs. descriptive or
>>> just proceed to vote directly?
>>>
>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Grant Ingersoll"
>>> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: About name change
>>>
>>> So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
>>>
>>>> people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is
>>>> silly
>>>> to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still
>>>> implies
>>>> it is the Apache one.)
>>>>
>>>> Any other suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
>>>>
>>>>> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
>>>>> being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
>>>>> grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
>>>>> projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land.
>>>>> There
>>>>> really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion
>>>>> of the
>>>>> name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did
>>>>> not
>>>>> acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector
>>>>> frameworks."
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is
>>>>> a
>>>>> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style
>>>>> name.
>>>>> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that
>>>>> have
>>>>> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans,
>>>>> TrafficServer,
>>>>> Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well,
>>>>> but
>>>>> that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself.
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land
>>>>> and
>>>>> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
>>>>> name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apa
Re: About name change
I meant decide the abstract vs. descriptive issue first. Whether we need to
decide to vote whether to hold a vote on that or just vote immediately on
the abstract vs. descriptive question. Either way is fine with me. I'd
prefer to hold off on deciding the exact name until the abstract vs.
descriptive issue is resolved.
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Karl Wright"
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: About name change
I think we should vote directly. Perhaps we can save time by supplying
our
top three choices, in order.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Jack Krupansky <
jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
I think the first order of business should be to decide whether the name
is
going to be descriptive or abstract. Exactly what that abstract name or
descriptive name is should be the second order of business, I think. Some
might disagree, but I don't think the first decision should be predicated
on
the exact list of name choices for the second decision.
Should there be a vote on whether to vote for abstract vs. descriptive or
just proceed to vote directly?
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Grant Ingersoll"
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: About name change
So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is
silly
to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still
implies
it is the Apache one.)
Any other suggestions?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land.
There
really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion
of the
name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did
not
acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector
frameworks."
Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is
a
distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style
name.
That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that
have
descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans,
TrafficServer,
Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well,
but
that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself.
Maybe
the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land
and
trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
"Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and
the
official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework."
That
said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the
name
in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop
"Connectors
Framework" from the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other
"handle" is chosen.
As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project
naming
conventions.
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Simon Willnauer"
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
To: "Grant Ingersoll"
Cc:
Subject: Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it
implied
something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what
it
was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little
or
nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does
it
make
sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
here!
simon
Karl
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey folks,
I was following the discussion
Re: About name change
I think we should vote directly. Perhaps we can save time by supplying our
top three choices, in order.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Jack Krupansky <
jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> I think the first order of business should be to decide whether the name is
> going to be descriptive or abstract. Exactly what that abstract name or
> descriptive name is should be the second order of business, I think. Some
> might disagree, but I don't think the first decision should be predicated on
> the exact list of name choices for the second decision.
>
> Should there be a vote on whether to vote for abstract vs. descriptive or
> just proceed to vote directly?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --
> From: "Grant Ingersoll"
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM
> To:
>
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
> So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
>> people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly
>> to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still implies
>> it is the Apache one.)
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
>>> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>>>
>>> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
>>> being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
>>> grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
>>> projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There
>>> really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the
>>> name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not
>>> acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
>>>
>>> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
>>> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
>>> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
>>> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
>>> Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but
>>> that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe
>>> the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
>>> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>>>
>>> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
>>> name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
>>> Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
>>> "Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the
>>> official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That
>>> said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the name
>>> in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors
>>> Framework" from the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other
>>> "handle" is chosen.
>>>
>>> As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
>>> there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
>>> conventions.
>>>
>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Simon Willnauer"
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
>>> To: "Grant Ingersoll"
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: About name change
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
>>>>>> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> sense to cla
Re: About name change
I think the first order of business should be to decide whether the name is
going to be descriptive or abstract. Exactly what that abstract name or
descriptive name is should be the second order of business, I think. Some
might disagree, but I don't think the first decision should be predicated on
the exact list of name choices for the second decision.
Should there be a vote on whether to vote for abstract vs. descriptive or
just proceed to vote directly?
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Grant Ingersoll"
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: About name change
So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly
to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still
implies it is the Apache one.)
Any other suggestions?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There
really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of
the name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there
did not acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector
frameworks."
Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style
name. That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects
that have descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans,
TrafficServer, Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP
Server" as well, but that is an anomaly since it is really just the
original Apache itself. Maybe the question is what the current consensus
preference is in Apache land and trying to go with the flow rather than
try to go against the flow.
In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
"Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and
the official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors
Framework." That said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project
description into the name in raw English form. So, my preference there
would be to drop "Connectors Framework" from the name and stick with
"Connecto", or whatever other "handle" is chosen.
As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project
naming conventions.
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Simon Willnauer"
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
To: "Grant Ingersoll"
Cc:
Subject: Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what
it
was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little
or
nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it
make
sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
here!
simon
Karl
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey folks,
I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache
Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@.
Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors
Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible
confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some
suggestions about alternative names here before we continue
discussion
on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't
apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss
further.
Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which
I
personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name.
Such names have many advanta
Re: About name change
snip - Consider using functional names, especially for products of existing projects, e.g. for an "Apache Foo" project, the product name "Apache Foo Pipelines". -snip Granted, "Lucene Connectors Framework" fills this to a T, but this would imply that functional names are OK for top-level projects too. Karl On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > > > I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. > > It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - > not really buying it would be a problem here. > > Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it > out yet, fyi on some recommendations: > http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html > > - Mark > >
Re: About name change
On 8/30/10 1:05 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me. It works for countless Apache projects (that's really the standard) - not really buying it would be a problem here. Also, I havn't been following closely, so if someone hasn't pointed it out yet, fyi on some recommendations: http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html - Mark
Re: About name change
The combination of a short, abstract "handle" such as "Yukon" and a more
descriptive longer name such as "Yukon Connectors Framework" makes sense to
me. The Official Apache name would be "Yukon", file names, class names, et
all would be based on "yukon" (e.g., http://yukon.apache.org/), but
documentation, presentations, promotional materials, discussion with people
outside of the LCF community, et al would refer to "Yukon Connectors
Framework."
As much as my own interest is focused on repositories such as Sharepoint, et
al and Solr and Lucene for output, it is worth emphasizing to non-LCF people
in Apache land that LCF really is general (universal?) and connectors can be
written for any data source and any data sink.
-- Jack Krupansky
--
From: "Karl Wright"
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: About name change
Open Connectors Framework is good, but suffers from the same broadness
issue
that Apache Connectors Framework has, no?
Yukon is fine but is already used - see
https://devel.neopsis.com/projects/yukon/
Here are my thoughts about a more restricted CF-style name:
Repository Connectors Framework
CM Connectors Framework
Combining an abstract name plus the descriptive name may get us somewhere:
Yukon Connectors Framework
Acromantula Connectors Framework (this is actually great because I don't
have to rename the bloody source packages again!)
I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is
silly
to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still
implies
it is the Apache one.)
Any other suggestions?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>
> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There
really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of
the
name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did
not
acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector
frameworks."
>
> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is
> a
distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style
name.
That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that
have
descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well,
but
that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself.
Maybe
the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land
and
trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>
> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
"Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and
the
official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework."
That
said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the
name
in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors
Framework" from the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other
"handle" is chosen.
>
> As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project
naming
conventions.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --
> From: "Simon Willnauer"
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
> To: "Grant Ingersoll"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it
>>>> implied
>>>> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what
it
>>>> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little
or
>>>> nothing about the project, and was oper
Re: About name change
Open Connectors Framework is good, but suffers from the same broadness issue
that Apache Connectors Framework has, no?
Yukon is fine but is already used - see
https://devel.neopsis.com/projects/yukon/
Here are my thoughts about a more restricted CF-style name:
Repository Connectors Framework
CM Connectors Framework
Combining an abstract name plus the descriptive name may get us somewhere:
Yukon Connectors Framework
Acromantula Connectors Framework (this is actually great because I don't
have to rename the bloody source packages again!)
I'm not too keen on just a simple abstract name - too meaningless for me.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
> people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly
> to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still implies
> it is the Apache one.)
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
> >
> > I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
> being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
> grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
> projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There
> really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the
> name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not
> acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
> >
> > Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
> Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but
> that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe
> the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
> >
> > In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
> name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
> Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
> "Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the
> official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That
> said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the name
> in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors
> Framework" from the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other
> "handle" is chosen.
> >
> > As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
> there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
> conventions.
> >
> > -- Jack Krupansky
> >
> > --
> > From: "Simon Willnauer"
> > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
> > To: "Grant Ingersoll"
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: About name change
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
> >>>> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what
> it
> >>>> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little
> or
> >>>> nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it
> make
> >>>> sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
> >>>
> >>> I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
> >> Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
> >> biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
> >> Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
> >> here!
> >>
> >> simon
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Karl
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
> >>>> simon.willna...@googl
Re: About name change
So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do people
think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly to me given
it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still implies it is the
Apache one.)
Any other suggestions?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>
> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as being
> the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land grab"). We
> should acknowledge that in the future there might be other projects that seek
> to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There really should be a
> "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the name - and we had
> one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not acknowledge that in
> the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
>
> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer, Web
> Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but that
> is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe the
> question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>
> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the name, a
> "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL Apache
> projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is "Connecto", the
> full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the official project
> name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That said, I am not a
> fan of trying to put the project description into the name in raw English
> form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors Framework" from
> the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other "handle" is chosen.
>
> As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that there
> is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
> conventions.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --
> From: "Simon Willnauer"
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
> To: "Grant Ingersoll"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
>>>> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it
>>>> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or
>>>> nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make
>>>> sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
>>>
>>> I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
>> Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
>> biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
>> Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
>> here!
>>
>> simon
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
>>>> simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache
>>>>> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@.
>>>>> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors
>>>>> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible
>>>>> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some
>>>>> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion
>>>>> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't
>>>>> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss
>>>>> further.
>>>>> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I
>>>>> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name.
>>>>> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and
>>>>> they are less ambiguous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions, thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> simon
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>>>
--
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: About name change
FWIW, I like Jack's suggestion of Apache Yukon, but we probably should see if
there are any confusingly similar names out there (i.e. connector software
named Yukon).
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>
> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as being
> the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land grab"). We
> should acknowledge that in the future there might be other projects that seek
> to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There really should be a
> "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the name - and we had
> one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not acknowledge that in
> the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
>
> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer, Web
> Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but that
> is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe the
> question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>
> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the name, a
> "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL Apache
> projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is "Connecto", the
> full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the official project
> name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That said, I am not a
> fan of trying to put the project description into the name in raw English
> form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors Framework" from
> the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other "handle" is chosen.
>
> As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that there
> is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
> conventions.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --
> From: "Simon Willnauer"
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
> To: "Grant Ingersoll"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
>>>> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it
>>>> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or
>>>> nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make
>>>> sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
>>>
>>> I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
>> Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
>> biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
>> Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
>> here!
>>
>> simon
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
>>>> simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache
>>>>> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@.
>>>>> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors
>>>>> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible
>>>>> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some
>>>>> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion
>>>>> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't
>>>>> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss
>>>>> further.
>>>>> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I
>>>>> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name.
>>>>> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and
>>>>> they are less ambiguous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions, thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> simon
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>>>
--
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as being
the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land grab"). We
should acknowledge that in the future there might be other projects that
seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There really should be
a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the name - and we
had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not acknowledge
that in the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but
that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe
the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the name, a
"handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL Apache
projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is "Connecto", the
full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the official project
name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That said, I am not a
fan of trying to put the project description into the name in raw English
form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors Framework" from
the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other "handle" is chosen.
As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that there
is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
conventions.
-- Jack Krupansky
------
From: "Simon Willnauer"
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
To: "Grant Ingersoll"
Cc:
Subject: Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied
something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it
was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or
nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it
make
sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first?
I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
here!
simon
Karl
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey folks,
I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache
Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@.
Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors
Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible
confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some
suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion
on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't
apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss
further.
Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I
personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name.
Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and
they are less ambiguous.
Any suggestions, thoughts?
simon
--
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied >> something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it >> was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or >> nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make >> sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? > > I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it? Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss here! simon > >> >> Karl >> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer < >> simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache >>> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. >>> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors >>> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible >>> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some >>> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion >>> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't >>> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss >>> further. >>> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I >>> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. >>> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and >>> they are less ambiguous. >>> >>> Any suggestions, thoughts? >>> >>> simon >>> > > -- > Grant Ingersoll > http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 > >
Re: About name change
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied > something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it > was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or > nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make > sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it? > > Karl > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache >> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. >> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors >> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible >> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some >> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion >> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't >> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss >> further. >> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I >> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. >> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and >> they are less ambiguous. >> >> Any suggestions, thoughts? >> >> simon >> -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
Also, the fundamental battle here is between an "abstract" name and a "descriptive" name. Grant and I had this very same discussion at the outset of LCF back last December - he and other PMC members apparently felt strongly that descriptive names were much better. If we do change names yet again, should we opt for an abstract name, or a descriptive one? Karl On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied > something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it > was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or > nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make > sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? > > Karl > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache >> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. >> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors >> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible >> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some >> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion >> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't >> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss >> further. >> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I >> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. >> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and >> they are less ambiguous. >> >> Any suggestions, thoughts? >> >> simon >> > >
Re: About name change
Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? Karl On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer < simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hey folks, > > I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache > Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. > Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors > Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible > confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some > suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion > on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't > apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss > further. > Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I > personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. > Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and > they are less ambiguous. > > Any suggestions, thoughts? > > simon >
