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 otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 gsing...@apache.orgwrote: 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 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
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 gsing...@apache.orgwrote: 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 -- 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 -- 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:25 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:01 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
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 gsing...@apache.orgwrote: 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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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 daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:20 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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 daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:20 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 gsing...@apache.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 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 daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:50 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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
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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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 -- Thanks, Matt Weber
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
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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
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 simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org 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
