[wsf-dev] naming?

[Scott Cantor]

> The only reason I can think of to not use openLiberty in the name might be
> our longer-term goal of getting these projects into the Apache Software
> Foundation.  Otherwise I don't know why we couldn't use openLiberty in the
> name.

My recollection was that it was something to do with keeping the overall
name disconnected from any specific deliverable, or something like that.

Personally, I would simplify things by casting all this work as
OpenLiberty-J and just nailing down the specific supported features (WSF
client, server, etc) in the docs. But I argued for that originally and it
didn't win, so...

-- Scott