On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:20 -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Julius Davies wrote: > ... > > I had to explain that Commons-SSL just sits on top of the JSSE and JCE > > to try and make working with SSL and Java easier. Your point about > > the name is a good one. > > The counterpoint to name argument. Just single example, I'm sure there are > many > more: commons-logging sits on top of log4j/java logger/logkit/... and tries > to > make working with all them seamless. > > commons-ssl may be not the best name but it isn't terribly bad either. > > Vadim >
Folks, What about Commons-SSLUtils? This name seems consistent with already existent Commons projects (DBUtils) Julius, Since "what-some-day-might-become-commons-ssl" is partially based on some little bits of code I wrote, you can safely add me to the initial list of committers. I will not be able to do a lot in terms of coding, given my HttpComponents commitments, but I could help by doing some code reviews once in a while and participating in design decisions. Cheers, Oleg > ... > > > On 12/1/06, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> The working title "Commons-SSL" does not really reflect this. Do you > >> plan to implement the SSL protocol as part of the project? Probably > >> not, so the title is misleading. An all-encompassing name might also > >> be offensive to people working on other SSL-related projects. I think > >> you should spend the time and define not only a motto, but a very clear > >> scope of the project. Both in terms of what's in scope as well as what's > >> out of scope. From there on, we can work on finding a name and home. > >> > >> Please do not underestimate the importance of this step. Finding a > >> name may seem like a minor detail, but the problem of defining the > >> scope is very real. Only a few months ago, there was a long discussion > >> on this list about a proposal for "testing.apache.org". I haven't read > >> anything about it anymore after the supporters realized that a scope of > >> "everything that has to do with testing" was overly broad. We don't > >> want to see that happen to your proposal. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]