+1 for Ignite.NET or Apache Ignite.NET. I think both should be valid. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Raul, good point! > > I have no information about .Net trademark, but other products use ".NET" > without a blank space. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like Ignite.NET. > > > > I wonder if the .NET portion may be trademarked by Microsoft. If that's > the > > case, I guess we cannot put a blank space between Ignite and .NET (Ignite > > .NET), it'll all need to be a single word, like proposed. > > > > Regards, > > > > *Raúl Kripalani* > > PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and > > Messaging Engineer > > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Let's agree on the final name of our .Net product. For now it is > > referenced > > > in various places as "Apache Ignite .Net", "Apache Ignite for .Net", > > > "Apache Ignite .Net platform", etc.. > > > > > > Ports of other Java projects to .Net are usually named as > > "[Product].NET". > > > E.g. Akka.NET, Spring.NET. > > > > > > I suggest use the same scheme and pick the name "Apache Ignite.NET". > > > > > > Any ideas or objections? > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > >
