Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF
Some while back I suggested manifolio. But that breaches the four syllable rule :-) How about Manifole? I'd say rather than bursting into votes, keep the discussion going, I suspect you'll know when you've got enough of the community behind you, and when it is then worth wrapping the whole thing up with a vote - at which point the vote is a mere formality. Worth giving it the effort now, see this recent post [1] - a name is going to stay with us all for a long time! Upayavira [1] http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2010/09/first-time-right On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 20:08 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: Actually, an abbreviation of AMCF is not bad either kinda like that myself. But I'm still not sure I like any of the book title choices I've offered myself here. Do we dare use Manifold Connectors Framework in Action? and describe AMCF as Manifold Connectors Framework at times? Karl On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: If this is adopted, I'm thinking we could use it in the following ways: Abbreviation: MCF Short name: ManifoldCF Qualified short name: Apache ManifoldCF Fully qualified and unabbreviated name: the Apache Manifold Connectors Framework I'm not quite sure what the world will think of that last usage, since it does not contain the trademark. Then again, neither does the abbreviation. But I'm not sure I'd dare make the book title be Apache Manifold Connectors Framework in Action. It would probably need to be Apache ManifoldCF in Action, or just ManifoldCF in Action. Grant, you wrote a book. What do you think? Which title should be used? Karl On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: -1 for me. Standing alone it's an okay name, but trying to actually use it is a pain (and we might as well call it MCF). But I'll certainly go along with the majority. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:25 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF Ok, I just want an up-or-down vote on ManifoldCF at this point. +1 from me. Karl On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/28/10 7:10 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: Fair enough. I could live with any of the other choices, but having this CF suffix really messes a lot of stuff up and is less practical than any of the other names. Basically, it means we may end up having to use MCF as the shorthand name. Wait... stop the presses... I just realized that ManifoldCF violates selection rule #5: (5) No more than 4 syllables Man-I-fold-C-F (or is in Ma-ni-fold-C-F.) That's five syllables. ManifoldCF was already in the running. And its obvious that having too many syllables is not a problem - it was the second most voted name - for the *second* time at least (who can track all these votes). And, technically, I would say that it at least half violates the spirit of rule #1: (1) It's a single word It is a single word plus this extra CF acronym thing. That's a stretch that the rational part of my brain is going to ignore. This is no argument. So, next candidate on the list was... Manicon, 19 Unless it has legal problems, it fits our requirements. Okay, lets vote again. For some reason ManifoldCF will stop topping the list why? Everyone will come to their senses? Some of us are so sick of this name thing we won't vote, and if your lucky those will be the ManifoldCF supporters? I mean come on... -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:52 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF Jack, That's one of the main purposes of having everyone list choices by priority. If one doesn't work, there are others you can use. I don't want to open that vote again unless the community decides that the list of candidate names was simply not rich enough to furnish a good choice. Karl On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: Or Nocon or Noman. I know people are tired of voting, but I think we should really re-vote for the revised candidate list with Connex removed. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:43 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF hmmm...I think I'm all voted out. Can we just call it nothing? On 9/28/10 6:40 PM, Karl Wright wrote: Vote +1
Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to Connex
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 17:58 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: Vote +1 if you want to rename Apache Connectors Framework to Connex, -1 if you want to keep Connectors Framework as the Apache name. This voting opportunity will expire at the end of the working day on Friday, EDT. This is good so far, but I'd suggest to slow up. We should now check out the suitability of the name. My association of the word is a (now defunct) rail company serving the south of England, so no conflict there. But, googling for connex software gives me a few options. It is almost as if there are so many connex this and connex that, that it doesn't matter if we use it too. Let's explore whether there are conflicts, and only then, vote on it. Upayavira (just lurking here in case he can help a bit)
Re: Exploring ManifoldCF ramifications
Butting in here. You can 'twist' the manifold word in other ways, e.g. manifolio, or some such - full name The Apache Manifolio Connector Framework, short name manifolio. Upayavira On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 10:26 -0400, Jack Krupansky wrote: My interpretation from the beginning is that there is a formal name prefixed with Apache that would get used external to the project to refer to the project, but then within the project we would just use the shorthand name, whether that means simply dropping the Apache or abbreviating the name with an acronym. If the project name was a short name to begin with, then abbreviation would not be needed, but if the name is too long and clumsy, an abbreviation might be called for. Manifold would fit the short prescription fine, but with ManifoldCF, the temptation to shorten it (some people, like me, are clumsy with too much shift key action) to MCF is somewhat... obvious. And when you lower-case the name for package names to manifoldcf, it kind of looks weird. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:58 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Exploring ManifoldCF ramifications Let's not overly analyze things here. I'm not saying we need to pick Manifold CF, but if we do, we certainly can solve these writing issues by either re-writing the sentences in question (instead of search/replace) and just use MCF. As for the Exceptions, I find an exception named ACFException meaningless to an app dev. anyway. Duh it's an ACFException, it came from ACF. You don't call an IOException a JavaException just b/c it came from Java, you give it a name that relates to the thing that went wrong, as in something went wrong doing IO. Give it a name that says what happened. On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Folks, The ManifoldCF name possibility leads to some challenges as far as our documentation is concerned. I thought that it might be a good idea during the vote to explore those to see what people thought. Here are some examples of how Apache Connectors Framework might get used in text: Apache Connectors Framework is an interesting offering from Apache. ACF links repositories with search indices. That's what ACF does. The Apache Connectors Framework is a framework for repository connectors primarily. The above is not technically proper. So instead we might conceivably have done this: Apache Connectors Framework is an interesting offering from Apache. Connectors Framework links repositories with search indices. That's what CF does. The Connectors Framework is a framework for repository connectors primarily. What is the equivalent for Apache ManifoldCF? Apache ManifoldCF is an interesting offering from Apache. ManifoldCF links repositories with search indices. That's what MCF does. ManifoldCF is a framework for repository connectors primarily. Note that the difference is that we would never say, The Apache ManifoldCF... or The Apache Manifold Connectors Framework..., just ManifoldCF Would we want to use the MCF abbreviation at all? Or just convert ACF - ManifoldCF wherever it is found in documentation? Similarly, the handle acf in package and class names would need to be addressed: org.apache.acf.core.interfaces.ACFException - ? org.apache.acf.core.system.ACF - ? ...bearing in mind that you'd better choose a consistent treatment for uppercase ACF in both contexts. (FWIW, my initial thought is: org.apache.acf.core.interfaces.ACFException - org.apache.mcf.core.interfaces.ManifoldCFException org.apache.acf.core.system.ACF - org.apache.mcf.core.system.ManifoldCF) Thoughts? Karl -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
