[wsf-c-dev] Re: [Oxygentank] [wsas-java-dev] Re: [esb-java-dev] Product Names

[Afkham Azeez]

Chatra Nakkawita wrote:
> I'm sorry but I don't think this will work. -1 from me. We have to be
> clear to the user on what implementation we are talking about, let it be
> a project home page, downloads page, tutorial, article etc
> 
> I think the same theory on this mail applies to WSO2 products with
> multiple implementations . See
> https://www-lk.wso2.com/mailarchive/oxygentank/2007-February/001391.html
> 

With respect to libraries such as WSF it is OK to have the version since
Java developers are not going to use WSF/C and vice versa. In terms of
products, it will be absolutely clear about what product an article is
talking about. As James pointed out, if ever we build a WSAS/C or ESB/C,
we may not call it WSAS or ESB in the first place. There is no hard and
fast rule that we'll have implementations of all products in C & Java.
Besides, like James pointed out, Word for C++, or OpenOffice for Java
will sound ridiculous. The user is not concerned about what language a
particular application is written in (in general). The case is different
for a library. A developer who is using one of our libraries, on the
other hand, needs to know the version.

With respect to articles, it is sometimes annoying when e.g. WSO2 WSAS
for Java keeps repeating. Imagine reading an article on JBoss which
keeps on repeating JBoss AS for J2EE? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

So I'm once again stating my +1 for dropping the "for Java" part. We
need to wrap up this conversation fast and come to a decision.

-- 
Afkham Azeez
GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9  B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760

http://www.wso2.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://wso2.org/pipermail/wsf-c-dev/attachments/20070316/63fd182f/signature.pgp