+1
Jörn
On Jan 21, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
+1 for changing the name to uima-as.
I think a clear and transparent name is very important that people
get interested in and work with.
It is also better and easier to integrate to the core if we decide
to move it from the Sandbox to the core any time in the future.
-- Michael
Marshall Schor wrote:
There is a new sandbox project, currently called uima-ee. Should
we change it's name?
A suggested alternative uima-as.
Some arguments pro / con changing the name
Pro:
1. uima-as goes with UIMA, Asynchronous Scaleout, and the name,
therefore, more clearly matches the functionality. This is good
from the perspective of being clear and transparent to new
users/developers.
2. uima-ee has no official meaning; it came from a practice of
labeling some products with these kinds of features as
"enterprise
edition", such as J2EE. This is kind of a marketing buzzword,
without any specific semantics, and could be used to include
other
kinds of enterprise scale capabilities beyond asynchronous
scaleout (so it is too broad for the current thing, at least).
Con:
1. uima-ee is already in use; we'd have to do extra (but probably
1-time) work to change it
2. uima-ee is broader - so we could include additional "enterprise
scale" capability, over time, in the new project, not related
specifically to Asynchronous Scaleout.
3. Written without the dash, uima-as becomes uima as and is
confusing
(because "as" is a common English word, whereas uima ee has no
such issue
4. It's always more make-work work to change a name than you think
There are probably other arguments pro / con, please post if
significant :-)
Please register your opinions on doing this name change. When you
do, please also indicate the strength of your view and reasons for
it :-) Except for the work, I'm slightly in favor of changing to
uima-as.
-Marshall
