On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 11:34 -0700, Gordon Mohr wrote: > I may have missed something -- but the answer doesn't seem to be in this > thread. > > What's wrong with 'HttpClient'? > > FWIW, this project under its current name 'owns' the term 'HttpClient' > via the major search engines; that's usually how I get to the > project pages for news, source dumps, etc. > > If the aim is to make a broader name to also encompass additional > related work, I would suggest some sort of extension to 'HttpClient' > preserving it as a name token, like 'HttpClient Toolkit' or some such. > Gordon,
This is an unfortunate side effect of internal Jakarta politics. There's nothing wrong with the name. To a certain extent it is a brand. The trouble is that we might be not permitted to release server side HTTP components because some believe that may constitute a breach of the project charter (whatever that mean since we do not have a charter yet). It appears that the only way around the problem is to call the project something else and keep on using HttpClient as brand of a product, not that of a project. I am not very found of this idea, but the alternative is just sit and do nothing. The existing API can no longer be bent in all sorts of creative ways to work around its inherent limitations. We need to restructure HttpClient quite radically, and not factoring out generic HTTP components into separate modules would be just plain silly Just my take for what it is worth Oleg > - Gordon @ IA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
