[wsf-dev] naming?

[Dick Hardt]

I would suggest that is too close to OpenID which does have a tm and  
given the confusion, I would recommend that they enforce.

-- Dick

On 26-Feb-08, at 10:26 AM, Curtis Jones wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wsf-dev mailing list
> Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org
> http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org
>
>