You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tika.apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2011/09/26 18:20:19 UTC

apache-tika-app? (Was: [VOTE] Apache Tika 0.10 release rc #1)

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> (should we name it apache-tika-app-NN.jar in the future?  Ie, add
> apache- in front)

I don't think that's needed, just like the httpd binary is not called
apache-http-server.

I'd rather keep the runnable jar name as short as possible. Ideally
we'd even drop the -app part, but that would make the Maven setup a
bit awkward.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Re: apache-tika-app? (Was: [VOTE] Apache Tika 0.10 release rc #1)

Posted by Oleg Tikhonov <ol...@apache.org>.
Why won't call it:* tikap* (tika application, and sounds like tea cup) ? :-)

BR,
Oleg

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Michael McCandless
> > <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> >> (should we name it apache-tika-app-NN.jar in the future?  Ie, add
> >> apache- in front)
> >
> > I don't think that's needed, just like the httpd binary is not called
> > apache-http-server.
> >
> > I'd rather keep the runnable jar name as short as possible. Ideally
> > we'd even drop the -app part, but that would make the Maven setup a
> > bit awkward.
>
> OK, the http precedent and keeping the runnable jar's name short
> make sense.
>
> And I agree dropping -app would be great... but sounds not-easy.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>

Re: apache-tika-app? (Was: [VOTE] Apache Tika 0.10 release rc #1)

Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> (should we name it apache-tika-app-NN.jar in the future?  Ie, add
>> apache- in front)
>
> I don't think that's needed, just like the httpd binary is not called
> apache-http-server.
>
> I'd rather keep the runnable jar name as short as possible. Ideally
> we'd even drop the -app part, but that would make the Maven setup a
> bit awkward.

OK, the http precedent and keeping the runnable jar's name short
make sense.

And I agree dropping -app would be great... but sounds not-easy.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com