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
