Actually, you don't want to name a feature of a pepper with another pepper :)
Why not Capsicium (the "heat"... aka the heart... of the pepper)!
I'm not a fan of OPP or multi-tier. Distributed is the most widely
understood, but I think Andrus is right about the assumptions people
will make. Really, its a remoting technique. Why not Object-Relational
Remoting, or something along those lines?
On 11/8/05, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) <michael_gentr..anniemae.com> wrote:
> How about, and I'm suggesting these only half-in-jest:
>
> Habanero
> Tabasco
> Jalapeno (I don't know how to put the squiggle over the "n" in Outlook)
> ...
>
> After all, does "Cayenne" really make you think "Java-based
> Object-Relational Mapping framework for database persistence"?
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:23 AM
> To: Cayenne Devel
> Subject: Multi tier name ideas?
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been looking for a better name to describe the multi-tier
> technology that is being developed now. I am not entirely satisfied
> with either of the names that were used in the course of the
> development:
>
> * Apple calls a similar feature "Java Client" which was always
> confusing to me (besides Cayenne doesn't deal with UI widgets at all).
> * "Distributed Cayenne" invokes an incorrect clustering association.
> * "Three-tier" overlooked seemingly the most common web service use
> pattern in the enterprise - unorganized ad hoc web services wrapping
> legacy code. So it is entirely possible to have two server
> applications, with one acting as a client of another.
> * This is where "Multi-tier" came from. I think it is still confusing
> though - it is not clear to an uninitiated person what those tiers
> are, and will require a lengthy explanation ... over and over again.
>
> Should we just call it OPP ("Object Persistence Protocol") after the
> namesake Java package that defines communication interfaces to build
> the hierarchy of ObjectContexts? It is not as catchy, but at least it
> doesn't create wrong associations.
>
> Any better ideas?
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 15:00:55 EST