Home » General (non-technical) » Eclipse Foundation » Proposed Project Naming Policy
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #20307 is a reply to message #20267] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 19:13   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: do_not_reply.this.email
I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for projects.
Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be confusing and
difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf, ldt, ohf,
ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful. (tomcat,
ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
"Bjorn Freeman-Benson" <bjorn.freeman-benson@eclipse.org> wrote in message
news:42A0802F.2010909@eclipse.org...
> I've posted a proposed Eclipse Project Naming Policy for comments and
> questions. Ian and I look forward to your comments, positive or negative.
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/processes/project-naming-proposal .html
|
|
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #20317 is a reply to message #20307] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 20:07 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: eclipse.rizzoweb.com
Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
> I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for projects.
> Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be confusing and
> difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
> growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf, ldt, ohf,
> ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
> Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful. (tomcat,
> ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
I disagree, but not 100%.
I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are just
as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
unless you already know what the product is.
There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
or ridiculously long.
Eric
|
|
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #20326 is a reply to message #20317] |
Tue, 07 June 2005 02:55 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
If you use descriptive names like Web Tools Project almost nobody is
going to spell it out in informal communication so you get WTP, which is
also meaningless if you don't know what it is. Then there's a WST and a
JST, one of which employs an SSE, I forget which. On the other hand,
if you called the project Katzenjammer and named the two sub-projects
Hans and Fritz, the nicknames work just as well as the acronyms when you
Google them, but they are rather more likely to stick in your mind.
(Fritz is the one with the Strudel.) ;-}
Bob
Eric Rizzo wrote:
> Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for
>> projects. Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be
>> confusing and difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects
>> in eclipse is growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like
>> ecf, etf, ldt, ohf, ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
>> Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful.
>> (tomcat, ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
>
>
> I disagree, but not 100%.
> I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
> that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
> However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
> familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are just
> as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
> me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
> unless you already know what the product is.
> There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
> meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
> long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
> or ridiculously long.
>
> Eric
|
|
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #20676 is a reply to message #20317] |
Sat, 25 June 2005 00:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jamesdcarroll.hotmaill.com
I agree. I would suggest that non sensical or "cute" names like "Ant" and
"Struts" should be descriptive, but only used during the development phase.
Once its released the name should be converted to a clear descriptive name.
For instance, a project that allows developers to create pictures that
represent data could be called "Picasso" at first, but released code would
be called the "Graphical Editing Framwork". Both names could be used at the
same time. For instance, GEF 3.0.1 is the current stable code, GEF 3.1 is
the current production candidate (alpha, beta, etc), while Picasso 9.0.1 is
a major re write that may (or may not) become GEF 4.0.
"Eric Rizzo" <eclipse@rizzoweb.com> wrote in message
news:d82af8$l5e$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
> > I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for
projects.
> > Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be confusing and
> > difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
> > growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf, ldt,
ohf,
> > ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
> > Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful.
(tomcat,
> > ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
>
> I disagree, but not 100%.
> I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
> that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
> However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
> familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are just
> as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
> me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
> unless you already know what the product is.
> There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
> meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
> long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
> or ridiculously long.
>
> Eric
|
|
| |
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #20857 is a reply to message #20676] |
Thu, 30 June 2005 09:47 |
 Genady Beryozkin
Messages: 410
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I think that using "development" and "release" names will only add to
confusion.
Just think of people who might want to google for some
information/question about the project.
And now for something completely different ...
Let's take "Mozilla" as an example. How "Mozilla", "Gecko", "Seamonkey",
"Thunderbird" and "Firefox" are all related?
(And I don't remember the ten or twenty other project names.)
What names are internal and what names are public? I ran into
announcement that the development of the seamonkey project will
be discontinued. It turns out that it is related to what I called "the
mozilla suite". That is confusing..
And what about version numbers? Does Firefox 1.0 has the same browsing
functionality as Seamonkey/Mozilla 1.7.2? Well, no. Firefox 1.0 is more
like seamonkey 1.7.5. Does Thunderbird 1.0.2 have
the same features as Mozilla 1.7.8? (I think it does). What about the
internal Gecko versions? How are they related?
I think that only the size and the success of a project determine
whether its name is "successful" or not.
For example - what "Java" had to do with anything before it was
released? Does anybody care that it was called "Oak" before
it was released? And if I don't mistake, "Eclipse" was supposed to be an
internal name (and I remember our local IBM
folks telling me that IBM can't release a product with that name,
because it was some "ibm's joke").
But guess what - the internal name was left, and since the product was
good, it sticked.
I think that in a company's/open source project's products line there
should be a strict consistency. For mozilla
I would have "Mozilla Suite", "Mozilla (Firefox) Browser" and "Mozilla
(Thunderbird) Mail". All products would have same version numbers,
for consistent with updates and patches. Consider Microsoft office
products - we have "office 2003" which includes "word 2003", "excel
2003", "powerpoint 2003", (or visual studio 2003), etc. It's all about
branding, and Microsoft's marketing does it well.
My point is - let's pick a name (e.g., eclipse) and brand all related
projects as "Eclipse (something)". For example,
"Eclipse Java suite/JDT/Cafe", "Eclipse C++ suite". It is also important
to keep version numbers consistent.
Genady
James D Carroll wrote:
>I agree. I would suggest that non sensical or "cute" names like "Ant" and
>"Struts" should be descriptive, but only used during the development phase.
>Once its released the name should be converted to a clear descriptive name.
>For instance, a project that allows developers to create pictures that
>represent data could be called "Picasso" at first, but released code would
>be called the "Graphical Editing Framwork". Both names could be used at the
>same time. For instance, GEF 3.0.1 is the current stable code, GEF 3.1 is
>the current production candidate (alpha, beta, etc), while Picasso 9.0.1 is
>a major re write that may (or may not) become GEF 4.0.
>
>
>
>
>"Eric Rizzo" <eclipse@rizzoweb.com> wrote in message
>news:d82af8$l5e$1@news.eclipse.org...
>
>
>>Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for
>>>
>>>
>projects.
>
>
>>>Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be confusing and
>>>difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
>>>growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf, ldt,
>>>
>>>
>ohf,
>
>
>>>ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
>>>Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful.
>>>
>>>
>(tomcat,
>
>
>>>ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
>>>
>>>
>>I disagree, but not 100%.
>>I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
>>that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
>>However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
>>familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are just
>>as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
>>me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
>>unless you already know what the product is.
>>There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
>>meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
>>long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
>>or ridiculously long.
>>
>>Eric
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #21015 is a reply to message #20857] |
Thu, 30 June 2005 21:10 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Seems to be a marketing question getting geek answers. ;-}
Bob
Genady wrote:
> I think that using "development" and "release" names will only add to
> confusion.
> Just think of people who might want to google for some
> information/question about the project.
>
> And now for something completely different ...
>
> Let's take "Mozilla" as an example. How "Mozilla", "Gecko", "Seamonkey",
> "Thunderbird" and "Firefox" are all related?
> (And I don't remember the ten or twenty other project names.)
> What names are internal and what names are public? I ran into
> announcement that the development of the seamonkey project will
> be discontinued. It turns out that it is related to what I called "the
> mozilla suite". That is confusing..
> And what about version numbers? Does Firefox 1.0 has the same browsing
> functionality as Seamonkey/Mozilla 1.7.2? Well, no. Firefox 1.0 is more
> like seamonkey 1.7.5. Does Thunderbird 1.0.2 have
> the same features as Mozilla 1.7.8? (I think it does). What about the
> internal Gecko versions? How are they related?
>
> I think that only the size and the success of a project determine
> whether its name is "successful" or not.
> For example - what "Java" had to do with anything before it was
> released? Does anybody care that it was called "Oak" before
> it was released? And if I don't mistake, "Eclipse" was supposed to be an
> internal name (and I remember our local IBM
> folks telling me that IBM can't release a product with that name,
> because it was some "ibm's joke").
> But guess what - the internal name was left, and since the product was
> good, it sticked.
>
> I think that in a company's/open source project's products line there
> should be a strict consistency. For mozilla
> I would have "Mozilla Suite", "Mozilla (Firefox) Browser" and "Mozilla
> (Thunderbird) Mail". All products would have same version numbers,
> for consistent with updates and patches. Consider Microsoft office
> products - we have "office 2003" which includes "word 2003", "excel
> 2003", "powerpoint 2003", (or visual studio 2003), etc. It's all about
> branding, and Microsoft's marketing does it well.
>
> My point is - let's pick a name (e.g., eclipse) and brand all related
> projects as "Eclipse (something)". For example,
> "Eclipse Java suite/JDT/Cafe", "Eclipse C++ suite". It is also important
> to keep version numbers consistent.
>
> Genady
>
> James D Carroll wrote:
>
>> I agree. I would suggest that non sensical or "cute" names like "Ant" and
>> "Struts" should be descriptive, but only used during the development
>> phase.
>> Once its released the name should be converted to a clear descriptive
>> name.
>> For instance, a project that allows developers to create pictures that
>> represent data could be called "Picasso" at first, but released code
>> would
>> be called the "Graphical Editing Framwork". Both names could be used
>> at the
>> same time. For instance, GEF 3.0.1 is the current stable code, GEF 3.1 is
>> the current production candidate (alpha, beta, etc), while Picasso
>> 9.0.1 is
>> a major re write that may (or may not) become GEF 4.0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Eric Rizzo" <eclipse@rizzoweb.com> wrote in message
>> news:d82af8$l5e$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>
>>
>>> Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for
>>>>
>>
>> projects.
>>
>>
>>>> Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be confusing and
>>>> difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
>>>> growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf, ldt,
>>>>
>>
>> ohf,
>>
>>
>>>> ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
>>>> Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful.
>>>>
>>
>> (tomcat,
>>
>>
>>>> ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree, but not 100%.
>>> I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
>>> that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
>>> However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
>>> familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are just
>>> as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
>>> me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
>>> unless you already know what the product is.
>>> There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
>>> meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
>>> long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
>>> or ridiculously long.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: Proposed Project Naming Policy [message #21045 is a reply to message #21015] |
Fri, 01 July 2005 21:52 |
Genady Beryozkin
Messages: 410
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
That's the best we can do :)
Just think of what we could achieve if we discussed the modern art
aspects of the Eclipse logo.
Bob Foster wrote:
> Seems to be a marketing question getting geek answers. ;-}
>
> Bob
>
> Genady wrote:
>
>> I think that using "development" and "release" names will only add to
>> confusion.
>> Just think of people who might want to google for some
>> information/question about the project.
>>
>> And now for something completely different ...
>>
>> Let's take "Mozilla" as an example. How "Mozilla", "Gecko",
>> "Seamonkey", "Thunderbird" and "Firefox" are all related?
>> (And I don't remember the ten or twenty other project names.)
>> What names are internal and what names are public? I ran into
>> announcement that the development of the seamonkey project will
>> be discontinued. It turns out that it is related to what I called
>> "the mozilla suite". That is confusing..
>> And what about version numbers? Does Firefox 1.0 has the same browsing
>> functionality as Seamonkey/Mozilla 1.7.2? Well, no. Firefox 1.0 is
>> more like seamonkey 1.7.5. Does Thunderbird 1.0.2 have
>> the same features as Mozilla 1.7.8? (I think it does). What about the
>> internal Gecko versions? How are they related?
>>
>> I think that only the size and the success of a project determine
>> whether its name is "successful" or not.
>> For example - what "Java" had to do with anything before it was
>> released? Does anybody care that it was called "Oak" before
>> it was released? And if I don't mistake, "Eclipse" was supposed to be
>> an internal name (and I remember our local IBM
>> folks telling me that IBM can't release a product with that name,
>> because it was some "ibm's joke").
>> But guess what - the internal name was left, and since the product
>> was good, it sticked.
>>
>> I think that in a company's/open source project's products line there
>> should be a strict consistency. For mozilla
>> I would have "Mozilla Suite", "Mozilla (Firefox) Browser" and
>> "Mozilla (Thunderbird) Mail". All products would have same version
>> numbers,
>> for consistent with updates and patches. Consider Microsoft office
>> products - we have "office 2003" which includes "word 2003", "excel
>> 2003", "powerpoint 2003", (or visual studio 2003), etc. It's all
>> about branding, and Microsoft's marketing does it well.
>>
>> My point is - let's pick a name (e.g., eclipse) and brand all related
>> projects as "Eclipse (something)". For example,
>> "Eclipse Java suite/JDT/Cafe", "Eclipse C++ suite". It is also
>> important to keep version numbers consistent.
>>
>> Genady
>>
>> James D Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. I would suggest that non sensical or "cute" names like
>>> "Ant" and
>>> "Struts" should be descriptive, but only used during the development
>>> phase.
>>> Once its released the name should be converted to a clear
>>> descriptive name.
>>> For instance, a project that allows developers to create pictures that
>>> represent data could be called "Picasso" at first, but released code
>>> would
>>> be called the "Graphical Editing Framwork". Both names could be
>>> used at the
>>> same time. For instance, GEF 3.0.1 is the current stable code, GEF
>>> 3.1 is
>>> the current production candidate (alpha, beta, etc), while Picasso
>>> 9.0.1 is
>>> a major re write that may (or may not) become GEF 4.0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Eric Rizzo" <eclipse@rizzoweb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d82af8$l5e$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Karthik Visvanathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of nickname to be adopted as the formal name for
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> projects.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Nicknames stand out. Acronym and descriptive names can be
>>>>> confusing and
>>>>> difficult to remember. Since the number of sub-projects in eclipse is
>>>>> growing, it is kinda difficult to remember acronyms like ecf, etf,
>>>>> ldt,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ohf,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ptp, tptp... We all know this list is going to grow.
>>>>> Apache foundation has many examples where nicknames are successful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> (tomcat,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ant, cocoon, struts, maven, geronimo etc)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, but not 100%.
>>>> I agree that Eclipse projects should strive to avoid acronym addiction
>>>> that plagues so many organizations. Deciphering acronyms is a pain.
>>>> However, usage of nicknames is just as painful. Unless/until you are
>>>> familiar with them (have seen & used them numerous times) they are
>>>> just
>>>> as arcane as acronyms. Sure, everyone knows Ant and Struts, but remind
>>>> me again, what is Geronimo? My point is that nicknames aren't useful
>>>> unless you already know what the product is.
>>>> There has to be a balance, a middle ground between completely
>>>> meaningless nicknames/acronyms on one end, overly verbose or abstract
>>>> long names on the other. Logical names that are not generic, abstract,
>>>> or ridiculously long.
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 04:06:38 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03794 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
