Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of daniel.kulp@iona.com designates
 65.223.216.181 as permitted sender)
From: Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com>
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Project name...
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:12:33 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200608071812.34014.daniel.kulp@iona.com>


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