[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=16952634#comment-16952634 ] Alexander Dolgunin edited comment on ISIS-1303 at 11/1/19 11:07 AM: Apache Rubedo (the final stage of the Great Work) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubedo] sounds better than *Rubato* to me. Also liked Adept tag lines and series of associations. On another hand, Isis is good as in: priests of Isis (highly cognizant/conscious individuals as I can judge from your 2017 IsisCon write-up) just replace Isis with one of: Dendera (largest and best-known temple dedicated to Isis among others), Nephthys (her sister which rescued Osiris in cooperation with her), Ankh (an important symbolic attribute), Sistrum (another divine accessory) or Candace (a royal figure closely related to Isis). It will be clear to the _literati_ that Dendera/Nephthys/Ankh/Sistrum/Candace is probably a framework previously known as Isis :) If Nephthys spells awkwardly to anyone, just look at some other software names... was (Author: alexander.d): Apache Rubedo (the final stage of the Great Work) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubedo] sounds better than *Rubato* to me > 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: Daniel Keir Haywood >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.4.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, > ApacheGestalt.jpg, Offset-curves-of-sinus-curve.svg > > > 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: > -
[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=16952634#comment-16952634 ] Alexander Dolgunin commented on ISIS-1303: -- Apache Rubedo (the final stage of the Great Work) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubedo] sounds better than *Rubato* to me > 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: Daniel Keir Haywood >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.4.0 > > Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, > ApacheGestalt.jpg, Offset-curves-of-sinus-curve.svg > > > 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
