Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

Le 8 sept. 2017 08:45, "David Blevins" a écrit : > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > +1 for going forward > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public perception about Geronimo and that people still

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > +1 for going forward > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > G-Server. > To mitigate this problem I pushed

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

+1 for going forward Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the G-Server. To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part and move the Geronimo project to become an

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

XBean is way more than config (it could be split in 3 or 4 projects if you just split it "logically"/by concerns) but the config overlap with config spec sounds too important to compete and since we'll not promote XBean features until it is in the spec I agree it wouldn't be sane. So sounds we

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > >> All, >> >> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward? >> >> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name. Even if it is

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > All, > > So what do we have to do to get this moving forward? > > I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name. Even if it is some > of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a > revitalization

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

All, So what do we have to do to get this moving forward? I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name. Even if it is some of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a revitalization effort to restore the name. The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

> Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the > project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO. Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G? Concretely there are 2 options: - keep G and promote the project with its new goal - drop it and name it with something new Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the project and is not

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo itself to XBean? I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ? John On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg wrote: > Perfectly

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle from the rest of xbean. Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same version. Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other. LieGrue, strub > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11

Renaming Geronimo Config?

Can we rename Geronimo Config? I think the name is strongly stuck with the app server. From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is usually an uphill battle. If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config. Open to other names as well. If we did call it XBean