The exception naming issue is noted, but that's really a separate problem. The IOException exception comes from the IO subsystem, and it's the base exception of everything from an encoding exception through a socket problem through a timeout. ACFException is a similar base exception class, except it comes from ACF. So there is a rough parity there. If you want to challenge the use of base exception classes, so be it, but that's not the difficulty with ManifoldCF.
Maybe we don't understand your intended usage of ManifoldCF, since it seems to me like you possibly meant "Apache Manifold Connectors Framework" for the full name? If so, I certainly don't think any of us got that. Can you clarify/confirm? Karl On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >
