HAHAHAHA, now I can see that. That's funny :) Well, I'm definitely open to more suggestions for alternate names. I personally think that Aseca is the best route and that we should go with that, barring any better suggestions.
If that doesn't work for everyone, I think we might be stuck with a total gibberish name. I guess I'd be ok with that as long as it is easy to pronounce. (e.g. Hadoop sounds just weird - ending on a consonant. I wouldn't want something like that) Mentors and other devs, what do you think? Would Aseca work? If not, what are some of your suggestions? On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe because my accent's a bit tinged with Yorkshire, no matter how I say > it out loud, it always comes out the same :-D > > > Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Haha, I think that's a little bit of a stretch :) My argument would be >> that >> people would only create such names if our project sucks or is hard to >> use. >> If we play our cards right, that shouldn't be an issue... >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
