Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <200608071812.34014.daniel.kulp@iona.com>
References: <200608071812.34014.daniel.kulp@iona.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <53DF4AE5-F7D6-43FD-B686-58346CE0655E@formicary.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Hani Suleiman <hani@formicary.net>
Subject: Re: Project name...
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:16:02 -0400
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org

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