On Mon, 30 May 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:
IMO there is nothing wrong with a code name for a subproject. Look no
further than the shale subproject. Its a lot easier to refer to that
subproject as shale then to accurately capture that project with a
"meaningful" one word name.
You might want to take a look at the editor's note here:
http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/struts-shale-README.html
for an explanation of why Shale was chosen for that project.
If we picked a codename that had some meaning behind it as well
(lonewolf) that would be a bonus. We already call the project
"components" and it is not really accurate as it contains both
components and extensions. The subproject can stand on its own with
any RI so IMO its important to give it a catchy shorthand name.
Um, that last sentence is a non sequitur. Can stand alone => needs catchy
name?
If you're going to pick a code name, then I would recommend against
"lonewolf", since it has connotations that are antithetical to The Apache
Way and might send the wrong signal. See:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lone+wolf&x=10&y=15
--
Martin Cooper
sean
On 5/30/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/30/05, Matt Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think a boring name like "components" would be much more meaningful than
a cool name like "tomahawk."
We need a balance between boring and cool that both captures
attention, yet remains informative.
How about Tomahawk Faces Extensions as the official name, with just
tomahawk as a convenient short form for mailing lists, etc?
Btw, I deliberately say "Extensions" over "Components" above because
there is obviously a lot more to extending Faces than just components.
Kind Regards,
John Fallows.
