[wsf-dev] naming?

[Curtis Jones]

I vote for "OpenLID" -- catchy, and has lots of marketing  
possibilities.  The only downside is that it's pretty damn close to  
"OpenID" -- but it wouldn't be the first such set of similarly named  
libraries in the same space (e.g., TAPI vs TSAPI).  I'd personally  
keep it simple/clean and leave off the "-J" except for actual package  
names or part numbers.  Otherwise, it's just "the Java flavor of  
OpenLID".

My $.02.

- Curtis


On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Asa Hardcastle wrote:

> I see where Conor is coming from and where Scott is coming from.
>
> OpenLiberty-J   sounds good, I also like the uppercase "O"  -- makes
> it look stronger.   The differentiation between wsc and wsp is
> important, however, as we have discussed many times before, the lines
> are very blurry.  The tooling that we have done for WSC would be re-
> useable for a WSP.
>
> The only problem is that openLiberty covers more than ID-WSF at then
> moment.   Maybe that should change.   OpenLiberty could still be the
> location of the work until the projects are under the apache
> foundation (kind of like the apache foundation itself -- apache is a
> webserver and a foundation)
>
>> OpenLiberty-J would be the java implementations of the ID-WSF
> specifications
>
> The package structure would determine the use (as it does now):
>
> org.openliberty.wsc
>  --  where the wsc code currently exists
>
> org.openliberty.xmltooling
>  -- where the base package for all of the java objects that represent
> the xml elements of the spec currently exist, eg,
> org.openliberty.xmltooling.disco
>
> org.openliberty.wsp
>  -- base packagewhere WSP code might be
>
>
> On the level of documentation, creating clear segregation between
> client and server is critical.  I imagine this would be done with use
> case sample code.
>
> Ideally we could get identity into the name in some way, and web
> services for that matter.  And it should be catchy.  OpenLiberty-J is
> catchy.
>
> Since ID-* is shorthand for ID-WSF, ID-SIS, ID-FF:
>
> idSTAR-J
>
> IDStar-J
>
> OpenLID-J
>
> OpenLIDStar-J
>
> LibertyStar-J
>
> OpenLID*-J
>
>
>
> later,
>
> asa
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Scott Cantor wrote:
>
>>> I think it is worthwhile differentiating between a client and a
>>> server
>>> implementation when we talk about the stuff.  So perhaps
>> OpenLiberty-J-Client or
>>> something that indicates it's the client side of Liberty in Java.
>>
>> And we rejected that because to most people client means something
>> they run
>> on their desktop.
>>
>> So I've said my peace (again)...I think it should be one name, and
>> don't
>> agree with splitting client and server.
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wsf-dev mailing list
>> Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org
>> http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org
>
> --
> Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib
> Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wsf-dev mailing list
> Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org
> http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org
>