Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact soap-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list soap-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 95177 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 13:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO platinum.allaire.com) (63.109.196.16) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 13:16:52 -0000 Received: from gamebox (namaste.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.162.35]) by platinum.allaire.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WFZ636VN; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: <029101c04a4f$12472c60$0b00a8c0@gamebox> From: "Glen Daniels" To: References: <001e01c04a3f$b7e2e7f0$29060e09@LANKABOOK> Subject: Re: name for 3.0 stuff (was: Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:15:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sorry I'm coming in late to the discussion, but what about "Web Service Infrastructure", or WSI, which is pronouncable as "whizzy"? I rather like the idea of people using "the whizzy engine from Apache".... +1 re: Sanjiva's scoping comments. I think the engine is a crucial piece, but when we add the other tools like interface importing/exporting, rich deployment options, and an easy-to-use extension framework, we get something that developers can *really* use. --G ----- Original Message ----- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana To: Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 6:25 AM Subject: name for 3.0 stuff (was: Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?) > Eventually this stuff has to grow in scope to cover related things like > WSDL tooling, UDDI-related stuff etc. to be really a Web services > infrastructure (which is what app developers really need IMO; the > transport part is obviously necessary, but not sufficient). How about > calling the new thing "Apache Web Services Project" and under that > create a sub-project called "Runtime Engine" as James suggested. > We could call it the "Web Services" project for a short version. > > That'd leave room for us to grow without having to another re-org. > Even if Apache doesn't become the host for some of the other stuff > (for e.g., I think there's an open-source UDDI project on sourceforge > already), the umbrella is an accurate description and from an Apache > Software Foundation point-of-view a location to host a collection of > related projects. > > Sanjiva. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:30 PM > Subject: RE: Potential F2F design session for 3.0? > > > > Jean-Noel Gadreau wrote: > > > > > > until we get the new CVS module > > > > My read of the relevant discussion to date is that there is consensus that > > there should be a different name than soap, but there isn't consent on what > > the name should be. > > > > Of the names mentioned to date, my favorite is WASP - I don't care what the > > acronym stands for (if anything), but Apache projects tend to be names not > > acronyms. > > > > It would be nice if we could get this issues resolved... > > > > - Sam Ruby > > >