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
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search