geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: micro-g vs. geronimo framework
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:52:59 GMT
I'd say call it minimal and just leave "little-g" as a nickname, since  
I think folks like to call it little-g, but technically it is minimal,  
or lite really :-P

--jason


On Mar 6, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:

> Agreed, the only thing is that we've been calling it Little-G for  
> quite some time now. Would it be too bad to call the assembly that  
> way?
>
> Lets face it,  Little-G sounds a lot cooler that geronimo-minimal.  
> Another thing in favor of keeping Little-G name is that "minimal"  
> would not be as representative anymore since the Geronimo framework  
> would actually the "new" minimal.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> I saw several times the term micro-g as well as geronimo framework  
>>> (or just framework) used indifferently as synonymous.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to standardize the term in the docs and would help a  
>>> lot if we agree to call it the same way.
>>> If no one oppose I'll propose we stick to "Geronimo framework" as  
>>> it also matches the assembly name.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>>
>> If we're going to do that (I think it's probably a good idea) ...  
>> then should we also consider using the term "minimal" consistently  
>> instead of little-G?
>> Joe


Mime
View raw message