> 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.
I remember Craig's reasoning. My point is that shale is a catchy name. A lot easier way to identify the subproject then calling it "enhanced controller built on JSF." > Um, that last sentence is a non sequitur. Can stand alone => needs catchy > name? My point is that this subproject is something that people may end up using independently of MyFaces. If it had a codeword it would be easier for people to refer to it without confusing it with the "core" of MyFaces (which is a JSF implementation.) > 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 I am familiar with the definition of lone wolf. Personally I doubt anyone pays much attention to the "signals" a subprojects name might be sending. > Martin Cooper sean
