Um... so how long before the "wits" starts referring to the package as
an "ass-ache" / "ass-acher" ?!?
Kalle Korhonen wrote:
As an abbreviation, feels a bit forced, but as a random made-up word Aseca
sounds alright. A bit close to Acegi, which could be good or bad and then
again, they renamed that project to Spring Security (Acegi 2 anyone? :)
Kalle
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote:
Ok, I think I might have a winner here:
Application SECurity Api (ASECA)
Nothing comes up at all in a USPTO search, it is generic, kinda rolls off
the toungue/easy to pronounce, it does not assume an Apache 'blanket'
project, and best, it does not have any existing software projects that I
can find. In fact, there is only one decent match from google for the
"Association of Securities and Exchange Commission Alumni", which I don't
think anyone will disagree is _totally_ different and unrelated to our
project. There are some PDFs that reference 'aseca', but none are related
to software or security.
What do you guys think? This might be the best I can come up with...
- Les
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]
wrote:
On Mar 13, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Now that I've had time to think about it more, if ASF and the Incubator
are
ok with 'Apache Security', I think we should try to use that as the
project
name.
This would certainly open up the floodgates for lots of contributions
from
the ASF community and new ideas, given that it would have wider
visibility.
Many projects (Geronimo, Tomcat, et. al) could all help guide us as to
what
they would want. I think that'd be great for the project's livelihood,
as
well as be nice for the ASF community as a place where they could
consolidate and focus efforts.
That's the case for us right now. Interest in this project is based
solely
on the product itself and the openness of the community, not by the
implication of the name.
Mentors - do you think we could use that name? (Or Apache Security API
or
Apache Security Framework, or whatever)?
There would be HUGE resistance from the other projects that are doing
their
own security mechanisms.
IMO, let a thousand flowers bloom.
Regards,
Alan
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:14 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <
[email protected]
wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Per this thread:
http://www.jsecurity.org/node/1081#comment-289
It appears that we can't use Ki.
So far the development team seems to be happy with "Apache Security
API",
which can have (good) far reaching implications for a good quality
framework. Any objections?
I think it implies that this project is happy to include all java
security
work at apache. For instance, would you be happy to include a xamcl
jacc
implementation that did not use your Subject but rather the JAAS
subject?
It would certainly be a java security implementation but AFAICT has
little
to no overlap with what you are doing now.
I think it also has a connotation that apache has somehow approved
your
api and all projects needing java security are expected to use it.
Dunno if anyone else gets these ideas from the name but I do. And I'm
certainly not implying anything about the nature or quality of this
project.... just that naming one project for the entire field of which
it is
an example may not be without problems and implications.
There is some implication that need to be overviewed, that's for
sure.
Now,
we may need a general security umbrella for many different project
related
to security. This could be a good starting point.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
