PORTLETBRIDGE is shorter than GERONIMODEVTOOLS, so I think we're good with that :-)
On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PortletBridge would be great as long as we can use that many characters. > > If folks prefer a codename I offer "Ponte". > > Ponte means bridge in Italian. > -Mike- > > Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > Hmm. +1 to PortletBridge. It's the closest we have to what the > > subproject is likely to be named. > > > > Scott > > > > Mike Kienenberger wrote: > >> Either a codename or PortletBridge would make the most sense to me. > >> > >> On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Any chance we can keep it simple/straightforward -- the other Keys > >>> seem to > >>> do this ... like: > >>> Portlet Bridge > >>> Bridge > >>> Portlet > >>> PltBridge > >>> PBridge > >>> > >>> -Mike- > >>> > >>> > >>> Manfred Geiler wrote: > >>> Done. > >>> > >>> BTW, I remember a discussion about the Jira key "JSR301". Reason for > >>> the discussion was that it's no ideal name, because there might be a > >>> time after jsr 301... > >>> Well, renaming a Jira key is not possible. > >>> What I could do is create a knew Jira project and bulk move all issues. > >>> But first we would have to find a proper key. > >>> MFPB for MyFaces portlet bridge? > >>> or JSFPB? > >>> Other suggestions? > >>> > >>> --Manfred > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Sure Manfred. If you would. I can then go and assign the existing Jira > >>> tickets in the appropriate categories. > >>> > >>> BTW, thanks sooo much for all your help in this... > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> Manfred Geiler wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> So, there would be 4 new Jira "components" for the bridge: > >>> api > >>> impl > >>> documentation > >>> testing > >>> > >>> right? > >>> should I add them right now? > >>> > >>> --Manfred > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hey guys, assuming there are not objections from incubator, I'm doing > >>> what I can to try to get the bridge project ready so we can hit the > >>> ground running. I was wondering what you guys thought about adding a > >>> couple of components to the jsr-301 jira project. > >>> > >>> First off, I would like to add impl and api components to this project. > >>> As an R.I., the api for this project will be largely dictated by the > >>> spec. Therefore bugs filed against the API should be handled with more > >>> scrutiny then changes to impl need to be. > >>> > >>> Secondly, I would like to see a separate component for documentation as > >>> I will expect there will be a lot added here. > >>> > >>> Third, it MIGHT be nice to add a "testing" component. I know that > >>> testing tasks could be included in the api and impl components, but > >>> part > >>> of the requirements for the testing suite for this project should be > >>> able ensuring compliance with the TCK. As an R.I., I know I personally > >>> would want to see these tests be as accurate as possible to ensure that > >>> the R.I. correctly implements the JSR-301 specification. > >>> > >>> What do you guys think? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >
