[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132261#comment-15132261 ] Jörg Rade commented on ISIS-1303: - Very interesting discussion - made me come up to: ProjectNames: * PureObjects * Distill * Acceleration * Allegro * Flux Slogans: * "No Fuss - Just Objects" (cineastic) * "$less buzz | more action" (nerdic) -j > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132189#comment-15132189 ] Richard Pawson commented on ISIS-1303: -- Given that Isis was a (mutually agreed and beneficial) split off from Naked Objects, I wouldn't normally offer and opinion on this, but Dan invited me to, so ... In understand the desire not to base the name on DDD or 'naked objects', because neither has gained much popular traction (much to my disappointment). Personally, I have never really seen the big deal about the Hexagonal architecture, and, even aside from that, I just don't like the name 'hex' at all - perhaps because of its rather sinister meaning, as in 'put a hex on something' (meaning put a curse on it). I think that dropping Isis in favour of Hex* would be an odd move! One thing that I hope we all still agree on is the central idea of objects - real objects, with rich behaviours. I have long argued, in my PhD thesis and elsewhere, that Naked Objects, and hence Isis also, are a better reflection of the OO ideal than anything that has been done since the early '70s. So how about a name that reflects the commitment to objects in some way. This could be the some reference or play on something that historical that was very significant in OO e.g.: Stimula (for Simula) Norway (origin of OO) Park (as in Xerox Parc) LargeTalk (I'm sure I don't need to explain that one) or some important technical idea in OO: Reflect (I quite like this idea, as reflecting over the model is a key idea), or Reflector or some acronym with OO in it e.g. ROOT (Real Object Oriented Technology) ROOF (Framework) Finally, and unrelated, I always like classical names e.g. Prometheus (stole the fire from heaven and give it to mere mortals) Narcissus (reflection again) or if you want to be really ironical: Procrustes (the innkeeper who insisted that customers should fit his bedstead either by stretching them on a rack, or sawing their legs off. The original 'opinionated framework'?) Richard Pawson > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis.
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132189#comment-15132189 ] Richard Pawson edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/4/16 11:33 AM: --- Given that Isis was a (mutually agreed and beneficial) split off from Naked Objects, I wouldn't normally offer an opinion on this, but Dan invited me to, so ... In understand the desire not to base the name on DDD or 'naked objects', because neither has gained much popular traction (much to my disappointment). Personally, I have never really seen the big deal about the Hexagonal architecture, and, even aside from that, I just don't like the name 'hex' at all - perhaps because of its rather sinister meaning, as in 'put a hex on something' (meaning put a curse on it). I think that dropping Isis in favour of Hex* would be an odd move! One thing that I hope we all still agree on is the central idea of objects - real objects, with rich behaviours. I have long argued, in my PhD thesis and elsewhere, that Naked Objects, and hence Isis also, are a better reflection of the OO ideal than anything that has been done since the early '70s. So how about a name that reflects the commitment to objects in some way. This could be the some reference or play on something that historical that was very significant in OO e.g.: Stimula (for Simula) Norway (origin of OO) Park (as in Xerox Parc) LargeTalk (I'm sure I don't need to explain that one) or some important technical idea in OO: Reflect (I quite like this idea, as reflecting over the model is a key idea), or Reflector or some acronym with OO in it e.g. ROOT (Real Object Oriented Technology) ROOF (Framework) Finally, and unrelated, I always like classical names e.g. Prometheus (stole the fire from heaven and give it to mere mortals) Narcissus (reflection again) or if you want to be really ironical: Procrustes (the innkeeper who insisted that customers should fit his bedstead either by stretching them on a rack, or sawing their legs off. The original 'opinionated framework'?) Richard Pawson was (Author: rpawson): Given that Isis was a (mutually agreed and beneficial) split off from Naked Objects, I wouldn't normally offer and opinion on this, but Dan invited me to, so ... In understand the desire not to base the name on DDD or 'naked objects', because neither has gained much popular traction (much to my disappointment). Personally, I have never really seen the big deal about the Hexagonal architecture, and, even aside from that, I just don't like the name 'hex' at all - perhaps because of its rather sinister meaning, as in 'put a hex on something' (meaning put a curse on it). I think that dropping Isis in favour of Hex* would be an odd move! One thing that I hope we all still agree on is the central idea of objects - real objects, with rich behaviours. I have long argued, in my PhD thesis and elsewhere, that Naked Objects, and hence Isis also, are a better reflection of the OO ideal than anything that has been done since the early '70s. So how about a name that reflects the commitment to objects in some way. This could be the some reference or play on something that historical that was very significant in OO e.g.: Stimula (for Simula) Norway (origin of OO) Park (as in Xerox Parc) LargeTalk (I'm sure I don't need to explain that one) or some important technical idea in OO: Reflect (I quite like this idea, as reflecting over the model is a key idea), or Reflector or some acronym with OO in it e.g. ROOT (Real Object Oriented Technology) ROOF (Framework) Finally, and unrelated, I always like classical names e.g. Prometheus (stole the fire from heaven and give it to mere mortals) Narcissus (reflection again) or if you want to be really ironical: Procrustes (the innkeeper who insisted that customers should fit his bedstead either by stretching them on a rack, or sawing their legs off. The original 'opinionated framework'?) Richard Pawson > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133166#comment-15133166 ] Ged edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/4/16 10:19 PM: !ApacheFarthing.jpg|thumbnail! was (Author: ged.by...@gmail.com): !ApacheFarthing.jpg! > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn (deliberately
[jira] [Updated] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ged updated ISIS-1303: -- Attachment: ApacheFarthing.jpg > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn (deliberately mis-spelled) > - hxg (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal, extensible, generic) > - hx (too short?) > some made up words > - hexag (partial
[jira] [Updated] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ged updated ISIS-1303: -- Attachment: ApacheFarthing.jpg > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn (deliberately mis-spelled) > - hxg (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal, extensible, generic) > - hx (too short?) > some made up words >
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133166#comment-15133166 ] Ged edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/4/16 10:21 PM: !ApacheFarthing.jpg! was (Author: ged.by...@gmail.com): !ApacheFarthing.jpg|thumbnail! > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133166#comment-15133166 ] Ged commented on ISIS-1303: --- !ApacheFarthing.jpg! > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn (deliberately mis-spelled) > - hxg (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal, extensible, generic) > - hx (too short?) > some made up
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133414#comment-15133414 ] Steve Cameron edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/5/16 12:37 AM: -- I like this discussion, to choose a name I suggest to forget about the technical side (e.g hexagon) for a bit and think of something that has more 'mojo', find a name with good association, even a made-up name (e.g Microsoft, Facebook). I've previously suggested Apache Driver (Driven, Driverseat, Highway, Freeway) to Dan and Jeroen. Driver reflects the NO and DDD heritage (does the software drive the business or the business drive the software, well hopefully both). In terms of marketing, in general the goal is to provide people with what they want or think they want (i.e. get a rabbit costume), they are out shopping, have money to spend (figuratively speaking), your advertising has worked, now you just have to convince them that what you are offering represents the best value amongst competiting alternatives. Good sales-persons can be creative with the truth to achieve this, but I don't think that is the approach to take here! The buyers will have some technical nouse, but "closing the sale" is still necessary, you have to get a decision to action. Again, I've suggested offering 1 day training courses as one way to do this, as help to "try-before-you-buy" (the videos that Dan does are good, but can be built upon further). Maybe Apache River (as in something that flows through a Valley), that might have been the original thought. was (Author: steve cameron): I like this discussion, to choose a name I suggest to forget about the technical side (e.g hexagon) for a bit and think of something that has more 'mojo', find a name with good association, even a made-up name (e.g Microsoft, Facebook). I've previously suggested Apache Driver (Driven, Driverseat, Highway, Freeway) to Dan and Jeroen. Driver reflects the NO and DDD heritage (does the software drive the business or the business drive the software, well hopefully both). In terms of marketing, in general the goal is to provide people with what they want or think they want (i.e. get a rabbit costume), they are out shopping, have money to spend (figuratively speaking), your advertising has worked, now you just have to convince them that what you are offering represents the best value amongst competiting alternatives. Good sales-persons can be creative with the truth to achieve this, but I don't think that is the approach to take here! The buyers will have some technical nouse, but "closing the sale" is still necessary, you have to get a decision to action. Again, I've suggested offering 1 day training courses as one way to do this, as help to "try-before-you buy" (the videos that Dan does are good, but can be built upon further). Maybe Apache River (as in something that flows through a Valley), that might have been the original thought. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > -
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133414#comment-15133414 ] Steve Cameron commented on ISIS-1303: - I like this discussion, to choose a name I suggest to forget about the technical side (e.g hexagon) for a bit and think of something that has more 'mojo', find a name with good association, even a made-up name (e.g Microsoft, Facebook). I've previously suggested Apache Driver (Driven, Driverseat, Highway, Freeway) to Dan and Jeroen. Driver reflects the NO and DDD heritage (does the software drive the business or the business drive the software, well hopefully both). In terms of marketing, in general the goal is to provide people with what they want or think they want (i.e. get a rabbit costume), they are out shopping, have money to spend (figuratively speaking), your advertising has worked, now you just have to convince them that what you are offering represents the best value amongst competiting alternatives. Good sales-persons can be creative with the truth to achieve this, but I don't think that is the approach to take here! The buyers will have some technical nouse, but "closing the sale" is still necessary, you have to get a decision to action. Again, I've suggested offering 1 day training courses as one way to do this, as help to "try-before-you buy" (the videos that Dan does are good, but can be built upon further). Maybe Apache River (as in something that flows through a Valley), that might have been the original thought. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15133414#comment-15133414 ] Steve Cameron edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/5/16 1:56 AM: - I like this discussion, to choose a name I suggest to forget about the technical side (e.g hexagon) for a bit and think of something that has more 'mojo', find a name with good association, even a made-up name (e.g Microsoft, Facebook). I've previously suggested Apache Driver (Driven, Driverseat, Highway, Freeway) to Dan and Jeroen. Driver reflects the NO and DDD heritage (does the software drive the business or the business drive the software, well hopefully both). In terms of marketing, in general the goal is to provide people with what they want or think they want (i.e. get a rabbit costume), they are out shopping, have money to spend (figuratively speaking), your advertising has worked, now you just have to convince them that what you are offering represents the best value amongst competing alternatives. Good sales-persons can be creative with the truth to achieve this, but I don't think that is the approach to take here! The buyers will have some technical nouse, but "closing the sale" is still necessary, you have to get a "decision to action". Again, I've suggested offering 1 day training courses as one way to do this, as help to "try-before-you-buy" (the videos that Dan does are a start but can be built upon further). Maybe Apache River (as in something that flows through a Valley), that might have been the original thought? was (Author: steve cameron): I like this discussion, to choose a name I suggest to forget about the technical side (e.g hexagon) for a bit and think of something that has more 'mojo', find a name with good association, even a made-up name (e.g Microsoft, Facebook). I've previously suggested Apache Driver (Driven, Driverseat, Highway, Freeway) to Dan and Jeroen. Driver reflects the NO and DDD heritage (does the software drive the business or the business drive the software, well hopefully both). In terms of marketing, in general the goal is to provide people with what they want or think they want (i.e. get a rabbit costume), they are out shopping, have money to spend (figuratively speaking), your advertising has worked, now you just have to convince them that what you are offering represents the best value amongst competiting alternatives. Good sales-persons can be creative with the truth to achieve this, but I don't think that is the approach to take here! The buyers will have some technical nouse, but "closing the sale" is still necessary, you have to get a decision to action. Again, I've suggested offering 1 day training courses as one way to do this, as help to "try-before-you-buy" (the videos that Dan does are good, but can be built upon further). Maybe Apache River (as in something that flows through a Valley), that might have been the original thought. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However >
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15131997#comment-15131997 ] Ged commented on ISIS-1303: --- Hi Dan, >From my experience selling AI internally is that it is seen as a developer tool. Which is why JHipster is seen as an alternative. JHipster was the winner on my latest project because developers prefer it. They can look at the templates and see what it is doing. They also feel that they can drop jHipster at any point and just use the code. AI appears magical, and developers distrust that. So I think there will be a lot of benefit in pushing AI in the wider context as a tool that promotes greater collaboration between business and IT that would be great. I also believe that this topic is far more important than just one framework. I'd strongly recommend the book "The Second Machine Age" by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. Here;s a bit from the first chapter: "The final section—chapters 12 through 15—discusses what interventions will be appropriate and effective for this age. Our economic goals should be to maximize the bounty while mitigating the negative effects of the spread. We’ll offer our ideas about how to best accomplish these aims, both in the short term and in the more distant future, when progress really has brought us into a world so technologically advanced that it seems to be the stuff of science fiction. As we stress in our concluding chapter, the choices we make from now on will determine what kind of world that is. " http://secondmachineage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SecondMachineAge_Ch1.pdf I don't think this is a message for AI to carry alone, but I would suggest seeking out like minded projects so that AI is part of a greater whole that works towards a better future through better software. f The "motherhood and applie pie message" needs to be preached. There are still many who see it as unpaid labour and produce with a short shelf life, and they tend to be holding the purse. Regards, Ged > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain
[jira] [Created] (ISIS-1304) Table column with icon and title is not left aligned
Vladimir Nisevic created ISIS-1304: -- Summary: Table column with icon and title is not left aligned Key: ISIS-1304 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1304 Project: Isis Issue Type: Bug Components: Core: Viewer: Wicket Reporter: Vladimir Nisevic Assignee: Dan Haywood Priority: Minor See screenshot -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (ISIS-1304) Table column with icon and title is not left aligned
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1304?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Vladimir Nisevic updated ISIS-1304: --- Attachment: screenshot-1.png > Table column with icon and title is not left aligned > > > Key: ISIS-1304 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1304 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Core: Viewer: Wicket >Reporter: Vladimir Nisevic >Assignee: Dan Haywood >Priority: Minor > Attachments: screenshot-1.png > > > See screenshot -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132585#comment-15132585 ] Cesar Lugo commented on ISIS-1303: -- As per Dan´s comment: "One thing I realize I haven't thought about sufficiently is figuring out what sort of audience we are looking to immediately connect with - bluntly, techies or business folk". I think it´s the software architect, or in smaller project the development team lead, who makes such a decision, or the CEO in larger organizations, highly influenced by the software architects. Also, I have learned (the hard way) that in marketing, the more radical you want to be, the more marketing power (and money) you will need to switch people´s minds (also known as the purchase vision in Solution Selling methodology). Also, one of the guidelines of Solution Selling methodologies is something like this "If you are a wolf but people is looking for a rabbit, get a rabbit costume. Once inside, convince them that what they are looking for is a wolf (redefine the purchase vision)". Speed might be too common (quite true), but read the comments and quotes, most of us still look for it as the number 1 benefit. Another way to look at it is the way Gen pointed out above: Apache ISIS provides AUGMENTATION to our software. I think that a multiplier factor is something all of us are really looking for and highly appreciated: do more with less. Yesterday I was thinking about XAGon, making the G look like a number 6 (X for multiply, A ffor app, 6 times), which creates curiosity to learn about the hexagonal concept understood as an augmentation or multiplier core enabler (you promise something, then quickly and simply back it up, with one diagram). But today some more great ideas and names have raised, which look quite good too with quite strong arguments (nice!). It´s quite nice to see Richard Pawson involved, I like that cooperation spirit you guys keep. Cesar. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132667#comment-15132667 ] Dan Haywood commented on ISIS-1303: --- Other new thoughts/metaphors: - gearing / ratios: Apache Isis (as is) allows fewer developers to do more because it amplifies their efforts. I couldn't think of any better metaphor image than the one Ged suggested yesterday, namely penny farthing cycle (big wheel to small wheel). So that's a potential vote for "farthing" as a name - bridges; we're building bridges between business and IT. Trying to think of nice and fairly well-known bridge names... the one that caught my eye was "Menai" (Menai Straits bridge - look it up on Wikipedia). I too like the augmentation concept, but couldn't think of anything particularly inspiring in that fold. Richard's name of "Reflect" strikes a chord with me too, though... I like it's both techie but also might intrigue someone wearing more of a business hat. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > -
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132789#comment-15132789 ] Oscar Bou commented on ISIS-1303: - Hi friends. Nice debate. I'm going to focus on the ones that might "buy" Isis. Until now, Apache Isis is best suited for business-oriented apps, not infra-like apps. And seems nearly all we have the need to implement really fast business apps with complex logic on it, being that the main reason we've chosen Apache Isis over competing frameworks/solutions. I fully agree with Cesar, that the name preferably might clearly identify our core strengths, as we're not particularly strong in marketing (but really ambitious in Apache Isis success :) That said, the following name has available domains: BIZ4IT I will think about more "business oriented" terms. Any help will be appreciated :) > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15132806#comment-15132806 ] Richard Pawson commented on ISIS-1303: -- What about one of the dozens of terms from Judo - one that has some sort of elegant meaning. I don't know much about Judo, but by way of example: Ippon means something like 'a win in one move' I think. I assume that whatever you choose, it will still be Apache xxx, so you need to think about how that sounds. Apache Ippon works. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15131926#comment-15131926 ] Dan Haywood commented on ISIS-1303: --- So, Vladimir's comment suggests one possible strapline: "do the right thing". > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around > this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered. > Candidate names: > - hex (might hit trademark issues) > - hexagon > - hexagn (deliberately mis-spelled) > - hxg (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal,
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15131926#comment-15131926 ] Dan Haywood edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 2/4/16 8:25 AM: --- All the comments so far have been great, really thoughtful and useful. >From reading them it occurs to me that focusing hexagonal architecture is >really an implementation detail; focusing instead on our principles and values >and USP might be better. The risk with the latter is that it can sometimes >get a little bit "motherhood and apple pie". One thing I realize I haven't >thought about sufficiently is figuring out what sort of audience we are >looking to immediately connect with - bluntly, techies or business folk. Anyway, Vladimir's last comment suggested one further possible strapline: "do the right thing". And for a name, another one that popped into my head (not sure if I like it or not) is "Apache Headroom". was (Author: danhaywood): So, Vladimir's comment suggests one possible strapline: "do the right thing". > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15131983#comment-15131983 ] Martin Vogel commented on ISIS-1303: Taking up Dans idea of the "headroom", more slightly spatial terms come across my mind. What do you think about "Apache Sphere" or "Apache Realm" respective a mix of both ? It emphasizes the separation in terms of the business domain and also might be associated with "fast" things (like rockets) regarding the development cycle. > Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose > > > Key: ISIS-1303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Wish >Affects Versions: 1.11.1 >Reporter: Dan Haywood >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: 1.13.0 > > Attachments: ApacheGestalt.jpg > > > In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the > project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of > sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in > the headlines. After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view > has been to retain our name: "we were here first". > Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came > up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it > flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live > within Oxfordshire, UK). > Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing. Originally we > marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern > [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the > Naked Objects Framework. However, this pattern is either not well-known or > is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea > immediately "get it"). The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't > help. And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures. > Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an > obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the > core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system. However > - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't > really made too much of an impression in that community. The fact that the > DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is > perhaps part of it. I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not > using a framework. The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such > developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain > code. > Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all. In the DDD community I > don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a > major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks. Instead they get > side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well > and good, but over-emphasised). > [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in > person), and he agreed there was little emphasis. When I described our > framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing > behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...] > Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered. They might > come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own > individual space. Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile > development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for > granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?" > What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept > or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea. > There are several candidates: > - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion > architecture, and related to the clean architecture) > - don't repeat yourself principle > - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the > recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern) > - the general concept of modularity > - DCI (data/context/interactions). > - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model > - agile, lean > - breaking down barriers between IT and business > Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well > regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no > open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position > themselves as being the natural choice. > Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate
