cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Debbie Moynihan" <debbiemoyni...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Project name...
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:30 GMT
Hi,

It is always hard to come up with a name that everyone loves and that nobody
hates.  The name CeltiXfire represents the history of the project and that
many of the community members come from the Celtix and Xfire project
communities.  There also weren't any trademark concerns around this name.  I
really like the nickname Sexfire as a nickname but I think that the name
spelled cxfire is hard because people may pronounce it literally and also
want to know what does "c" and what does "x" stand for.

We had come up with many suggestions for alternative names before submitting
the proposal, but many other really good ideas are already being used for
other software products/projects/company names.  Finding names without
trademark issues is hard.
Deb

On 8/8/06, Sakala, Adinarayana <ASAKALA@iona.com> wrote:
>
> > > Looking through the general incubator archives i didnt find
> > > anything that suggested us to change the name.
> > > So, i think we are good to go with the CeltiXfire name.
> >
> > That doesn't appear to be the consensus.
>
> Yup, i am catching up the email :)
>
> - Adi
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jason@maven.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:06 PM
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Project name...
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8 Aug 06, at 2:16 PM 8 Aug 06, Sakala, Adinarayana wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > >> So, the question is:  do we have to change the name or is
> > celtixfire
> > >> acceptable? (with the proposed package name being
> > >> org.apache.cxf)
> > > I think CeltiXfire is acceptable and we probably should use
> > > org.apache.cxf as package name as it will be consistent with the
> > > name and other resources that we are being setup.
> >
> > It's not that hard to change the names associated with resources.
> > Basically up to the group to decide now.
> >
> > > Looking through the general incubator archives i didnt find
> > > anything that suggested us to change the name.
> > > So, i think we are good to go with the CeltiXfire name.
> >
> > That doesn't appear to be the consensus.
> >
> > > Probably we should check with Apache legal for sanity sake.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Adi Sakala
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kulp, John Daniel
> > >> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:56 PM
> > >> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Project name...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> When we made the CeltiXfire proposal, I know there was a lot
> > >> of feedback
> > >> regarding the name.   Some liked it, some hated it, there
> > >> were concerns of
> > >> trademarks, etc...
> > >>
> > >> I know everyone basically said the name issues could be
> > >> resolved during
> > >> incubating, but it would be nice to resolve it sooner.
> > >> We're going to have
> > >> to do a major package rename (org.objectweb/org.codehaus ->
> > >> org.apache) and
> > >> it would be nice to settle on the next at the same time to
> > >> minimize the
> > >> disruption.
> > >>
> > >> So, the question is:  do we have to change the name or is
> > celtixfire
> > >> acceptable? (with the proposed package name being
> > >> org.apache.cxf)   Can
> > >> someone make heads/tails of all the recent naming discussions
> > >> on the general
> > >> incubating list and figure out if we do or do not need to
> > >> change it?
> > >> Trying to follow all those discussions is making my head spin.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> J. Daniel Kulp
> > >> Principal Engineer
> > >> IONA
> > >> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
> > >> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > jason@maven.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message