-Matt
On 5/30/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
