Let's not overly analyze things here. I'm not saying we need to pick Manifold CF, but if we do, we certainly can solve these writing issues by either re-writing the sentences in question (instead of search/replace) and just use MCF.
As for the Exceptions, I find an exception named ACFException meaningless to an app dev. anyway. Duh it's an ACFException, it came from ACF. You don't call an IOException a JavaException just b/c it came from Java, you give it a name that relates to the thing that went wrong, as in something went wrong doing IO. Give it a name that says what happened. On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > Folks, > > The ManifoldCF name possibility leads to some challenges as far as our > documentation is concerned. I thought that it might be a good idea > during the vote to explore those to see what people thought. > > Here are some examples of how Apache Connectors Framework might get > used in text: > > "Apache Connectors Framework is an interesting offering from Apache. > ACF links repositories with search indices. That's what ACF does. > The Apache Connectors Framework is a framework for repository > connectors primarily." > > The above is not technically proper. So instead we might conceivably > have done this: > > "Apache Connectors Framework is an interesting offering from Apache. > Connectors Framework links repositories with search indices. That's > what CF does. The Connectors Framework is a framework for repository > connectors primarily." > > What is the equivalent for Apache ManifoldCF? > > "Apache ManifoldCF is an interesting offering from Apache. ManifoldCF > links repositories with search indices. That's what MCF does. > ManifoldCF is a framework for repository connectors primarily." > > Note that the difference is that we would never say, "The Apache > ManifoldCF... " or "The Apache Manifold Connectors Framework...", just > "ManifoldCF...". > > Would we want to use the MCF abbreviation at all? Or just convert ACF > -> ManifoldCF wherever it is found in documentation? > > Similarly, the handle "acf" in package and class names would need to > be addressed: > > org.apache.acf.core.interfaces.ACFException -> ? > org.apache.acf.core.system.ACF -> ? > > ...bearing in mind that you'd better choose a consistent treatment for > uppercase ACF in both contexts. > > (FWIW, my initial thought is: > > org.apache.acf.core.interfaces.ACFException -> > org.apache.mcf.core.interfaces.ManifoldCFException > org.apache.acf.core.system.ACF -> org.apache.mcf.core.system.ManifoldCF) > > Thoughts? > > Karl -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
