cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Project name...
Date Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:28:48 GMT
I like cxf acronym, maybe we should just find a "meaning" or a
weird pronouciation to that: like "seexeff" ?
as in "see" and "jeff" ...

I also like the cexfire name ...

On 8/8/06, Hani Suleiman <hani@formicary.net> wrote:
>
> Please, for the love of god, change it.
>
> Even plain old cxfire is better. The name as it stands is awful. It'd
> be nice if we could have a name that'd actually match the package
> name too.
>
> cfire? celfire? cexfire (teehee)?
>
> On Aug 7, 2006, at 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
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

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