On 9/1/09 12:23, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 18:15, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]> wrote:
For me personally, I have no problem with referring to things as Apache
iPOJO, etc. I was under the [apparently mistaken] impression that we could
not do this, because it implied it was a TLP. So, we could change all of
those names in one swoop and I would be fine with that.
As far as coming up with a name for the framework subproject, I don't have
an issue with that either. Maybe it has been long enough now that we could
go back to using Oscar. ;-) Technically, its name now is Framework, but this
may be too generic, e.g., Apache Framework.
Yeah, "Apache Framework" would be a very bad name imho. In the recent
past, the ASF tend to use project names that are not technology names.
Apache WebServices is a really good example of a bad name, and that's for
this very reason that the ASF now try to find non technology related names.
Oscar would be fine, though I think to ease removing the confusion, it would
be better to rename the TLP itself if ever possible.
I don't think I would actually want to reuse Oscar...it would probably
make more sense to come up with something similar to Felix.
I don't agree about renaming the TLP. There are so many examples of
similar situations. I cannot believe we are truly in a unique situation
here:
* "Apache" typically means the HTTP Server project, but it also
refers to the foundation and all of its independent projects.
* "Eclipse" typically means the IDE, but there is also a runtime and
foundation with independent projects.
Acting like this isn't normal or something that is too confusing to ever
resolve seems a bit preposterous.
-> richard
-> richard
On 9/1/09 12:10, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Forwarding an exerpt of one of my answer to Richard reply.
I really think it's worth discussing it anyway.
Most of the TLP I know about that have subprojects usually refer to those
subprojects as Apache Foo and not Apache Bar Foo.
So this would mean Apache iPojo and not Apache Felix iPojo, ditto for
other
subprojects.
I also think the "branding" problem should be addressed (if possible) by
renaming either the framework or the TLP. It looks to me that renaming
the
TLP (even if I think would better) might be more difficult to achieve from
an infra pov, but I may be wrong (I know there are some tools for
migrating
mailing lists and such, so it might not be so difficult).
I'd like to hear other's thoughts.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guillaume Nodet<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 17:45
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
To: [email protected]
The problem I have with Felix is really a branding problem. While *we*
(as
developers) very well know that all the subprojects of Felix are not tied
to
the Felix Framework itself, it's really difficult to spread this word
around
to non techies. The name Felix is often associated to the OSGi framework
implementation itself, and it's kinda hard to remove this tie unless
either
the project or the framework change its name to something else. For
example, the framework could be referred to as Apache Foo and other
subprojects as Apache iPojo or Apache Karaf. I think it would help
removing
this tie. The other way around is possible too, rename the project to
something else, and keep Apache Felix as referring to the framework itself
(which might be even better, but slightly more difficult to actually
achieve). I'm not sure there is a very easy way, but [email protected] would
a
better place to discuss that.
