[wsf-dev] [Igf-dev] Fwd: Naming of WSF and IGF

[Asa Hardcastle]

I agree with Scott on this point.  We are stronger if there is a  
perception of a whole.  Personally I like Open, but I am completely  
_open_ to a better idea if there is one out there.

OpenSAML (obviously not an OpenLiberty project, but all of the  
clientlib tooling is based on it)
OpenWSF
OpenIGF
OpenECP Plugin

My preference is to keep the names short, easy to say, recognizable,  
and as meaningful as possible.

later,

asa

--
Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib
Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7



On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:

>> I'm confused. You seemed to want to call the WSF project the
>> OpenLiberty/J project.  My objection was that one project should not
>> have the same name as the organization name.
>
> No, I wanted to use a single "umbrella" name derived from the  
> organization
> and just deliver the subsets of function with more specific  
> technical names
> or provide the option to download specific pieces, whatever makes  
> sense.
>
> What I was suggesting was that people looking for code are going to
> recognize the name Liberty but will not in general recognize WSF or  
> IGF. And
> I'm suggesting that every project will now have to repeat the same  
> difficult
> argument, and I was just trying to avoid that.
>
> Otherwise, I would argue that it's better to just pick a consistent
> convention and use OpenWSF, OpenIGF, etc. As I said earlier, I  
> strongly
> disagree with you about the word Open.
>
> But since I guess people want to leave it to each project, all I can  
> say is
> have fun. At least Sampo's code has a name already. ;-)
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wsf-dev mailing list
> Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org
> http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org