[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jettro Coenradie updated CONNECTORS-92:
---
Attachment: maven-poms-problem-starting-jetty-and-derby.patch
This is a patch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12904205#action_12904205
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92:
---
Jettro,
If you are using maven to start
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12904209#action_12904209
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92:
---
I've had a cursory glance at the pom
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12904219#action_12904219
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92:
---
bq. I am still thinking about why this is
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
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.
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
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.
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
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12904324#action_12904324
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92:
---
Another way you can determine what's
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
