Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jnosql-dev] [nosql-dev] Possibly renaming the implementation project

Hum, I got it. If the issue is the nicknames around the project, we can remove all of them; therefore, instead of Diana and Artemis, it directly became communication and mapping. E.g.:

CurrentNew Name

What do you think?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:09 PM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote:



Please see a response by David/Tomitribe to the recent Plan Review where aside from procedual remarks and advise he also raised the question about po



+1 Tomitribe


We're voting +1 as we believe the goal of the specification has merit and we are excited to see new specifications being attempted in the Jakarta-verse.


A key exit criteria for us before we'd vote +1 on a final release would be to ensure there is industry interest in implementing this API.  Before any final ballot we'd want to see a second implementation being worked on and nod from them saying the API is ready.


We'd also recommend a cleaner line between the implementation and the specification.  We understand the intent is for the specification's complete and full name to be "Jakarta NoSQL" and the implementation to be "Eclipse JNoSQL", which we agree are clear and separate.  However, at current time the front page of the draft specification has the implementation's "JNoSQL" logo and a third ambiguous brand name of "Eclipse Jakarta NoSQL", which can be interpreted as the long version of either "Jakarta NoSQL" or "Eclipse JNoSQL."  We recommend a clean line of using "Jakarta" to refer to the specification and "Eclipse" to refer to the implementation.


A final thing to consider which is far outside the specification process and should only be interpreted as advice.  Consider entirely renaming the implementation project to make it impossible for it to be confused for the specification itself.  This could go a long way to encouraging other implementations to show up and feel they have a reasonable chance to compete without branding confusion that favors one implementation and puts them at a disadvantage.



The most natural choice if there isn’t any trademark problem would be "Eclipse Diana" instead of "Eclipse JNoSQL" because it is already used for a subsystem. Otherwise we would Need a vote and name search, not sure, which you prefer?


"Artemis" even as a subsystem is toxic and misleading because it is a subproject or subsystem of Apache ActiveMQ and used in places like


I highly recommend to replace "Artemis" with something neutral either "mapping" or "cdi", because it essentially defines the CDI Extension and one could imagine a module with "spring" or "spring-di" similar to


I know especially "Eclipse Mylyn" changed its name from "Eclipse Mylar" after there was a trademark problem with a company like 3M I believe.

I see no problem using the Domain "" being used for the spec project instead like is an alias for Jakarta JSON-B now. We could do that or clearly Point out, that „JNoSQL“ stands for „Jakarta NoSQL“ and rename the pages or sections Talking About the implementation.





nosql-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Otávio Santana

Back to the top