name for 3.0 stuff (was: Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?)

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>]

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" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
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
> 

Re: name for 3.0 stuff (was: Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?)

[Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com>]

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 <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
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" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> 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
> >
>

Re: name for 3.0 stuff (was: Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?)

[Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com>]

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 <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
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" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> 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
> >
>