The original Commons Charter recommended "dull" functional names as well -- in the sense that the names should be as descriptive as possible of the underlying functionality, not some made-up word or association that nobody has a clue about. Why that text disappeared is something I need to research separately. In the mean time (and as a Jakarta PMC member as well as an active Commons contributor), -1 on foo-foo names for Commons packages that don't have any linkage to reality. +1 on "convert" (or something similar) to cover this particular functional area.Thanks Matt :) I'm going to go ahead and commit the codebase I've got at the moment. Continued inline...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Sgarlata Matt wrote:
Hen reminded me I promised to do this, so here is a first crack at a mandate
for the proposed Convert sandbox component. One thing I was thinking about
is the name. Convert is rather dull, how about calling it Morph instead?
I like dull :) Dull doesn't need marketing or religion, it just slowly
gains users.
If your code can't earn new users on its own merits without a whiz-bang name, it doesn't belong in Jakarta Commons.
Craig
I don't know what format we want this mandate in, so for now I have a copy
in M$ Word that I will convert (pun intended) to the appropriate format
later. Here is a text copy of it:
If you look in a Commons project, it has a PROPOSAL.html. This is the format. However, it ought to be written by an Apache committer so your text below would be something I [or someone else] would splice in.
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
