cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Project name...
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:00:16 GMT
Is it too close to Solr (also in incubation)?

First to graduate wins the right to keep their name! :)

- Brett

On 15/08/2006 11:41 PM, Frank Lynch wrote:
> +1 I quite like the sound of Apache Solas.
> 
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:31 -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>> I particularly like Apache Solas, though there are things out there  
>> called Apache and things called Solas.
>>
>> Considering the prior name contained "fire", which gives light, I  
>> consider Solas to be a romantic upgrade.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Johnson, Eric wrote:
>>
>>> I think the best approach would be to get away from any ties to the  
>>> two
>>> legacy projects in the name of the new one. Let's get a clean slate  
>>> and
>>> avoid any confusion with the legacy projects.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kulp, John Daniel
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:15 PM
>>>> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Project name...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick summary of the ideas on the thread so far....
>>>> I've seen some
>>>> positive interest in:
>>>>
>>>> Leave as CeltiXfire
>>>> CXF - no meaning, just CXF
>>>> cxfire
>>>> celfire
>>>> cexfire
>>>> Solas
>>>> Ceol
>>>> Bodhran
>>>> cerveza (or some variant like cerweza, xerveza, etc...) foam
>>>> (or xfoam)
>>>>
>>>> Are there any I missed?   Any additional ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday August 07 2006 6:12 pm, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
> 


-- 
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org/
Better Builds with Maven - http://library.mergere.com/

Mime
View raw message