My interpretation from the beginning is that there is a "formal" name
prefixed with "Apache" that would get used external to the project to
refer
to the project, but then within the project we would just use the
"shorthand" name, whether that means simply dropping the "Apache" or
abbreviating the name with an acronym. If the project name was a short
name
to begin with, then abbreviation would not be needed, but if the name is
too
long and "clumsy", an abbreviation might be called for. "Manifold" would
fit
the short prescription fine, but with "ManifoldCF", the temptation to
shorten it (some people, like me, are clumsy with too much shift key
action)
to "MCF" is somewhat... obvious. And when you lower-case the name for
package names to "manifoldcf", it kind of looks weird.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gsing...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:58 AM
To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Exploring ManifoldCF ramifications
> 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
>
