I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
Concretely there are 2 options:
- keep G and promote the project with its new goal
- drop it and name it with something new
Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo
> itself to XBean?
> I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates
> to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle
>> from the rest of xbean.
>> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same
>> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
>> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>:
>> > Can we rename Geronimo Config? I think the name is strongly stuck with
>> the app server. From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is
>> usually an uphill battle.
>> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config. Open
>> to other names as well.
>> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the
>> same version as the other xbean components. We could, but I think 1.0
>> would still be fine.
>> > --
>> > David Blevins
>> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> > http://www.tomitribe.com