Hi Julian,

A common pattern of modern ASF duels seems to be writing longer and longer 
emails till someone finally gives up ;-)

Chris


Am 16.09.19, 18:51 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:

    Hi,
    
    ist not that i disagree with you, I just don’t agree : D
    Logic Analyzer sounds weird for me (but I'm also not so used to that).
    
    So we should go on discussing.. and if no consensus is found we meet 
somewhere, two men, nobody else, no guns (and no bears!). Knifes are probably 
okay (have to check the Apache Policy on consensus finding again...) : )
    
    Julian
    
    Am 16.09.19, 09:45 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
    
        Hi julian,
        
        Well  coming back to your explanation:
        I would never use an oszyloscope to analyze such plc signals they have 
a far to low frequency for oszylloscope analysis. Especially an oszylloscope 
requires things to have a frequency and you couldn't detect simple low frequent 
logic level shifts.
        Thinking about how I usually analyze signals in the IoT space, I always 
use my Logic-Analyzer which is much more suited for such tasks.
        So if we would stick to your reasoning, I would prefer "logic analyzer" 
instead of "oszylloscope".
        
        Chris
        
        
        Am 16.09.19, 17:37 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" 
<j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>:
        
            Hi,
            
            although I agree with Chris and Kai (better name things 
functionally) I personally prefer something like 'osciloscope' as it transpoets 
the intent of the lib better than 'process' or 'compute'-
            
            Oscilloscopes are known to help you with analyzing signals, in fact 
Wikipedia states:
            
            "The waveform can then be analyzed for properties such as 
amplitude, frequency, rise time, time interval, distortion, and others. Modern 
digital instruments may calculate and display these properties directly. 
Originally, calculation of these values required manually measuring the 
waveform against the scales built into the screen of the instrument.[3]"
            
            So I think this is the name I prefer most, especially because it 
brings the intent as close as possible.
            
            Julian
            
            
            Am 16.09.19, 02:36 schrieb "Strljic, Matthias Milan" 
<matthias.strl...@isw.uni-stuttgart.de>:
            
                +1 for that. I am not a fan of fancy cool names 😊. So 
Processing / Filter / SignalWatchDog would be better for me.
                
                Greetings Mathi
                Matthias Strljic, M.Sc.
                
                Universität Stuttgart
                Institut für Steuerungstechnik der Werkzeugmaschinen und 
Fertigungseinrichtungen (ISW)
                
                Seidenstraße 36
                70174 Stuttgart
                GERMANY
                
                Tel: +49 711 685-84530
                Fax: +49 711 685-74530
                
                E-Mail: matthias.strl...@isw.uni-stuttgart.de
                Web: http://www.isw.uni-stuttgart.de
                
                -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 
                Gesendet: Sunday, September 15, 2019 7:09 PM
                An: dev@plc4x.apache.org
                Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename CRUNCH to something different
                
                Hi all,
                
                The thing with Oszilloskope and dsp that I see, ist that für me 
it sort off relates to hard- and not Software (but that might just be me).
                
                I was discussing this with Julian here at apachecon and I quite 
like the idea of calling the current layer "PLC4X connect" and the new one 
"PLC4X process".
                
                Chris
                
                Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
                
                ________________________________
                From: Tim Mitsch <t.mit...@pragmaticindustries.de>
                Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 9:43:13 AM
                To: dev@plc4x.apache.org <dev@plc4x.apache.org>
                Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename CRUNCH to something different
                
                Hey,
                
                As i'm electrical engineer i like the name oscilloscope.
                But full ack to Kai, name should be clearer.
                Furthermore i like Kai's suggestion PLC4X DSP as it is short 
and clear what Crunch does ... processing and analyzing digitalized data. Maybe 
we could also call it PLC4X MSP for 'Mixed Signal Processing' or any other 
artifical acronym.
                
                Best
                Tim
                
                Am 15.09.19, 18:20 schrieb "Kai Wähner" <megachu...@gmail.com>:
                
                    I would vote for something like Niclas proposed. Much 
clearer than having
                    yet another product / component name...
                
                    For instance, PLC4X DSP, PLC4X Signal Processor, or 
something what clearly
                    describes in one or two words / shortcuts what the 
component does.
                
                    See Kafka and its ecosystem: Kafka Connect, Kafka Streams, 
Confluent Schema
                    Registry, Confluent Rest Proxy, Confluent Control Center, 
etc...
                
                    Kai
                
                    On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 9:05 AM Julian Feinauer <
                    j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> wrote:
                
                    > Hi,
                    >
                    > I was thinking about naming and came up with ideas like...
                    >
                    > - trace4j
                    > - dsp4j (digital signal processing, that is)
                    > - pluse (as we detect pulses and stuff)
                    > - oscilloscope <-- I quite like that, it fits quite well 
as we really look
                    > into signals
                    >
                    > What are thoughts on those?
                    >
                    > J
                    >
                    > Am 08.09.19, 22:38 schrieb "Niclas Hedhman" 
<nic...@hedhman.org>:
                    >
                    >     peanut gallery; I would recommend a descriptive name, 
in format of
                    > "PLC4X
                    >     Abc", rather than a stand-alone name. Somewhere in 
the future, you may
                    > have
                    >     a dozen of these and one wouldn't know where to start 
looking.
                    >
                    >     Cheers
                    >     Niclas
                    >
                    >     On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:51 AM Julian Feinauer <
                    > j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
                    >     wrote:
                    >
                    >     > Hi all,
                    >     >
                    >     > I just discussed (off-list) with Justin the next 
steps needed.
                    >     > They are
                    >     >
                    >     > * fill out software grant (pm)
                    >     > * Start IP clearance vote on incubator list (JF)
                    >     > * Gather ICLA from all contributors of CRUNCH
                    >     >
                    >     > Parallel I’d like to start a discuss on how we 
should call it as
                    > PLC4X
                    >     > subproject.
                    >     >
                    >     > Any ideas or suggestions?
                    >     >
                    >     > Julian
                    >     >
                    >
                    >
                    >     --
                    >     Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
                    >     http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
                    >
                    >
                    >
                
                
                
            
            
        
        
    
    

Reply via email to