You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@manifoldcf.apache.org by ka...@nokia.com on 2010/08/19 22:27:00 UTC
Name change official
Apparently we are green to go ahead with the proposed name change.
I'd like to propose at this time that no actual source code or packages be changed. I suggest instead that the name change occur to the site materials, documentation, and collateral materials exclusively. Any thoughts?
Karl
Re: Name change official
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@lucidimagination.com>.
"Where do people think we are in terms of putting out something like a 0.1?"
Now that we have QuickStart, I think the main obstacle I see is getting a
nightly build that produces a zip that people can download, unzip, and run.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:51 AM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Name change official
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:44 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Changing all the java class and package names would, at this point,
>> seriously inconvenience our broader community. That's why I proposed it
>> the way I did. Unless you can think of a compelling reason to do it that
>> way, I think we're stuck with those as-is.
>
> Since we haven't done a release, I think we should do it before the
> release. People on trunk, pre-release are subject to change. Besides, w/
> a modern IDE, something like this is a trivial find and replace.
>
> Speaking of releases... Where do people think we are in terms of putting
> out something like a 0.1?
>
> -Grant=
Re: Name change official
Posted by Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>.
Personally I would go for it all the way. You will drag the weird package
name and some class names along for all the years and releases to come.
- Jettro Coenradie
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:01 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> There are a number of people in the field that I am aware of that have
> already written their own connectors, and have working installations. I am
> not trying to belittle the benefits, but I think the bar is a bit higher
> that you think here. This is, after all, August, and things have been well
> underway for seven months now.
>
> The release question has to do mostly with documentation at this point. I
> believe there was one requested feature that may be done (notification to
> connectors of job start and end), and one controversial feature (writing a
> postgresql installer) that I didn't sign up for. Everything else was
> documentation and infrastructure (e.g. nightly builds, official releases,
> etc.)
>
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:51 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Name change official
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:44 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <
> karl.wright@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > Changing all the java class and package names would, at this point,
> seriously inconvenience our broader community. That's why I proposed it the
> way I did. Unless you can think of a compelling reason to do it that way, I
> think we're stuck with those as-is.
>
> Since we haven't done a release, I think we should do it before the
> release. People on trunk, pre-release are subject to change. Besides, w/ a
> modern IDE, something like this is a trivial find and replace.
>
> Speaking of releases... Where do people think we are in terms of putting
> out something like a 0.1?
>
> -Grant
>
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: Name change official
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
There are a number of people in the field that I am aware of that have already written their own connectors, and have working installations. I am not trying to belittle the benefits, but I think the bar is a bit higher that you think here. This is, after all, August, and things have been well underway for seven months now.
The release question has to do mostly with documentation at this point. I believe there was one requested feature that may be done (notification to connectors of job start and end), and one controversial feature (writing a postgresql installer) that I didn't sign up for. Everything else was documentation and infrastructure (e.g. nightly builds, official releases, etc.)
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:51 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Name change official
On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:44 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Changing all the java class and package names would, at this point, seriously inconvenience our broader community. That's why I proposed it the way I did. Unless you can think of a compelling reason to do it that way, I think we're stuck with those as-is.
Since we haven't done a release, I think we should do it before the release. People on trunk, pre-release are subject to change. Besides, w/ a modern IDE, something like this is a trivial find and replace.
Speaking of releases... Where do people think we are in terms of putting out something like a 0.1?
-Grant
Re: Name change official
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:44 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Changing all the java class and package names would, at this point, seriously inconvenience our broader community. That's why I proposed it the way I did. Unless you can think of a compelling reason to do it that way, I think we're stuck with those as-is.
Since we haven't done a release, I think we should do it before the release. People on trunk, pre-release are subject to change. Besides, w/ a modern IDE, something like this is a trivial find and replace.
Speaking of releases... Where do people think we are in terms of putting out something like a 0.1?
-Grant
RE: Name change official
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Changing all the java class and package names would, at this point, seriously inconvenience our broader community. That's why I proposed it the way I did. Unless you can think of a compelling reason to do it that way, I think we're stuck with those as-is.
Karl
________________________________________
From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:20 PM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Name change official
I'd opt for a "clean break" and change everything, but certainly in any
staged order that seems appropriate.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: <ka...@nokia.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:27 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Name change official
> Apparently we are green to go ahead with the proposed name change.
>
> I'd like to propose at this time that no actual source code or packages be
> changed. I suggest instead that the name change occur to the site
> materials, documentation, and collateral materials exclusively. Any
> thoughts?
>
> Karl
>
>
Re: Name change official
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@lucidimagination.com>.
I'd opt for a "clean break" and change everything, but certainly in any
staged order that seems appropriate.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: <ka...@nokia.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:27 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Name change official
> Apparently we are green to go ahead with the proposed name change.
>
> I'd like to propose at this time that no actual source code or packages be
> changed. I suggest instead that the name change occur to the site
> materials, documentation, and collateral materials exclusively. Any
> thoughts?
>
> Karl
>
>
Re: Name change official
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@lucidimagination.com>.
I had been kind of wondering how ACF or even LCF could be allowed by Apache
to have a generic name, rather than some cute/clever name like... everything
else in Apache land, as well as the rules for having "Apache" being part of
the name. Lucene is officially "Apache Lucene", but we all know it as
"Lucene". Ditto for Apache Solr, Apache Maven, et al. So, even if the
official name were "Apache Connectors Framework", the common name would be
"Connectors Framework" (which is kind of generic.) Of course, the product is
designed to be... generic.
So, does ACF/LCF need a "real" name rather than a descriptive name?
How about "Yukon", as in Universal Connectors, with a "K" in place of the
"C" in honor of Karl's work?
Would that fly past the judges?
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 6:51 AM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Name change official
> Scratch that. There seems to be some consternation on general@incubator
> about the name, saying it's too generic. Ugh.
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:27 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Apparently we are green to go ahead with the proposed name change.
>>
>> I'd like to propose at this time that no actual source code or packages
>> be changed. I suggest instead that the name change occur to the site
>> materials, documentation, and collateral materials exclusively. Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>
Re: Name change official
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Scratch that. There seems to be some consternation on general@incubator about the name, saying it's too generic. Ugh.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:27 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Apparently we are green to go ahead with the proposed name change.
>
> I'd like to propose at this time that no actual source code or packages be changed. I suggest instead that the name change occur to the site materials, documentation, and collateral materials exclusively. Any thoughts?
>
> Karl
>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8