My gut reaction is that "sf" stands for sourceforge. But on that note, s1 is pretty close s3 which is an amazon thing.
Having a longer name than s1 or sf is also fine so then we have: s1framework-core s1framework-data-emf s1framework-otrunk Or we could just pick some random word like: franconia. That was the place where we had the Nov 2004 retreat, and we started to narrow in on what became the core code. I'm thinking along the lines of "dublin-core" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core So then we have franconia-core franconia-data-emf franconia-otrunk Scott Turadg Aleahmad wrote: > one more idea: what about "sf" in the ids, meaning "S1 Framework"? > > sf-core could be the artifactId while "S1 Framework Core" is the name. > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Turadg Aleahmad <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I support the disruptive position. If SAIL is a group of > developers and an index of projects, which two weeks ago we > collectively decided it is, no project should be more "SAIL" than > another. SAIL had become two things: software project and > developer community. We chose to keep the SAIL name for the > developer community, so we need now to think of a new name for the > software project. > > I like "s1" because it conveys that it is the first attempt at > something and leaves room for a next generation codebase > attempting the same thing. That thing will happen within the SAIL > community, not as it. > > As for the refactoring, I'm not in the code enough these days to > have an informed opinion. I think we could simply rename the > projects to omit "sail" without doing the refactoring, but the > work that that takes in reconfiguring IDEs may merit doing any > pending refactorings at the same time. > > Still, let's figure out the name as a separate discussion. I like > Scott's "s1" idea. Any others? Any objections to renaming? > > Speaking of renaming, "Scalable Architecture for Interactive > Learning" no longer describes very well the object of the SAIL > name. I'll start another thread on that on SAIL-Discuss. > > -t > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Scott Cytacki > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > Now that Sail is a group of developers and an index of > projects, should > any one project use Sail in its name? > > My disruptive inclination is to say no. This way there will > be less > confusion about "What is Sail?". > > Which means we should rename/refactor: > sail-core > sail-data-emf > sail-otrunk > > Perhaps for now just turn "sail" into "s1" short for "sail > version 1". > > sail-core -> s1-core > sail-data-emf -> s1-data-emf > sail-otrunk -> s1-otrunk > > We could spend more time refactoring this stuff, but I'm not > sure how > long it is going to live. > For example we'd all like to have repository backed learner > data, in one > case this means replacing sds with roolo. This could also > take some > other form. But in any case sail-data-emf would probably not > be used > anymore. And in that case perhaps the majority of sail-core > might go > too. > > One considerations about this is a lot of tweaking has gone in to > sail-data-emf to help with problems we've found in the > schools. If it > is replaced then we need to be careful to include most of > those tweaks. > This includes: > - dealing with incorrectly set computer clocks > - dealing with cached learner data that is gets sent up out of > order > - dealing with changes to the learner data schema > > Scott > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SAIL-Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SAIL-Dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
