+1
On 08/10/2015 16:56, Matt Frantz wrote:
> I like "provider", too, as it seems less awkward and more specific than
> "implementer". Also, the phrase "implementations of provider interfaces"
> sounds better than "implementations of implementer interfaces".
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> That's a nice word. Perhaps there were times we referred to it as such.
>> It sounds familiar but I searched around for "Blueprints Provider" and
>> turned up nothing of consequence. If we ever used that I'm not sure where
>> we were doing it. That being said "Implementers" (and variations) seemed
>> to show up more often on gremlin-users in the right context. Nothing
>> scientific in my approach of course...
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 AM, James Thornton <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't "provider" the term typically used for interface/specification
>>> implementations?
>>>
>>> - James
>>> On Oct 5, 2015 3:33 PM, "Marko Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> In the documentation we have:
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/#vendor-requirements
>>>> Similarly, we use the term "vendor" here and there to denote people who
>>>> provide TinkerPop-enabled graph systems and languages (commercial or
>>>> otherwise). The term "vendor" has been stated by the ASF mentors as
>> being
>>>> "too commercial." Thus, we can change the docs to say "Implementers."
>>> Note
>>>> that the homepage already uses the terms "Implementations."
>>>>
>>>> Please vote whether you want to remove the term "vendor" from our
>>> parlance.
>>>> +1 [remove vendor]
>>>> -1 [keep vendor]
>>>>
>>>> ------- my vote is +1 remove vendor.
>>>>
>>>> This vote with close in 72 hours -- Thursday 8, 2015 at 2:35pm MST.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marko.
>>>>
>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>
>>>>
