Oh my, I wonder where we will end up with this discussion!
I like Matt's Appaloosa, but if I leave out the Appa, "loosa" does not sound too great in my ears ;) What about coming down to what the components are really about - being modules, you are able to stack them together and create new things out of them... Apache Lego is no possibility, I know ;) Maybe we should go ask a native American about the Apache way of saying box? I would have suggested Apache Pueblos, but I just learned that Pueblos are the villages and not the houses, and well, the Pueblos people were a different tribe, they just did trade with the Apache People... Does anybody know how the white houses which are stacked to gether to form a Pueblo (and hence very much resemble to modules to me ;) are called? Apart from that, I still like Tomahawk the best. I don't mind a martial name too much, as winning the market of web-application frameworks is still some kind of war-fare ;) And I liked Mocassins, too, but it being a deadly snake is a slight problem I guess, I wouldn't want to wake associations with snakes, rather a Tomahawk then.. regards, Martin On 5/31/05, Matt Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You make some good points. Still, "tomahawk" does have some negative > connotations. How about "Appaloosa," after the breed of horse, which was > originally bred by the Nez Perce tribe, and helped them to prosper? > > -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 > > > >
