Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Lets rename Eclipse RCP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] e4 | Reporter: | Patrick Paulin <patrick> |
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | Project Inbox <e4.ui-inbox> |
| Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | bokowski, contact, eclipse-bugs, eclipse, fg, gershwinou, ian.skerrett, info, irbull, jan.kohnert, jeffmcaffer, jin.phd, juergen.zimmermann, Kevin_McGuire, kowalskilee, Lars.Vogel, manuel.woelker, Matthew_Hatem, mich, mike.evans, mike.milinkovich, pascal, prakash, ralf.ebert, ralf, remy.suen, rezebric, roman.porotnikov, schlamp, simpson.cl, slewis, spacehorst, stepper, tjwatson, tom.seidel, tomas.am, v.caselli, wim.jongman, yves.yang |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Patrick Paulin
+1 +1 Instead of using the name "Eclipse Workbench" I'd favor "Eclipse IDE", but I completely agree, that such a naming convention is necessary to show people that Eclipse is more than just the IDE. +1 (In reply to comment #2) > Instead of using the name "Eclipse Workbench" I'd favor "Eclipse IDE", ... I think the connotation of "IDE" is different as it is more special and related to development. Isn't the scope of the workbench broader? +1 As for the alternative name for Eclipse RCP, emphasizing the "modilar UI" side, I'd personally like something related to "Ikebana" :) +1 +1 +1 +1 It's about time to adapt a naming convention of Eclipse projects. The Eclipse Foundation is not the creator of the "Eclipse RCP" brand. It pre-dates the existence of the Foundation. Successful branding of open source projects does not happen because Foundations come up with names. The development team working on a piece of technology needs to come up with a name and work with their community to turn that name into a brand. Read "Brand Hijack" if you are interested in how this process happens. In other words, the folks leading and developing RCP have to want to change the name if anything is going to occur. Let's see if they have any comments. Is there an opportunity with e4 to change something in the future? Perhaps "Eclipse Platform" becomes "e4/Workbench" and "RCP" becomes "e4/Desktop"? Those are just ideas...I have no particular affinity to any particular name. (In reply to comment #10) > The Eclipse Foundation is not the creator of the "Eclipse RCP" brand. It > pre-dates the existence of the Foundation. > > Successful branding of open source projects does not happen because > Foundations come up with names. The development team working on a piece of > technology needs to come up with a name and work with their community to > turn that name into a brand. Read "Brand Hijack" if you are interested in > how this process happens. I agree, but I don't think it was Patrick's intention that the Foundation choose a name. This bug is assigned to the e4 UI component, which is the appropriate place to discuss a name change. > In other words, the folks leading and developing RCP have to want to change > the name if anything is going to occur. Let's see if they have any comments. I do agree with Patrick on all points. In particular, Patrick, if you could drive this initiative that would be great. How about we start collecting potential names here? > Is there an opportunity with e4 to change something in the future? Perhaps > "Eclipse Platform" becomes "e4/Workbench" and "RCP" becomes "e4/Desktop"? > Those are just ideas...I have no particular affinity to any particular name. I assumed that Patrick's proposal is to find a good name for e4's equivalent of the "RCP", not rename the 3.x RCP. Patrick, is this correct? (In reply to comment #11) > I assumed that Patrick's proposal is to find a good name for e4's equivalent of > the "RCP", not rename the 3.x RCP. Patrick, is this correct? > Even so, because brand establishment or change takes quite a bit of time, it might be a good idea to start promoting and using the new brand/name even before the e4 "product" is available. (In reply to comment #11) > I do agree with Patrick on all points. In particular, Patrick, if you could > drive this initiative that would be great. How about we start collecting > potential names here? I'd be happy to drive the initiative and I think collecting names here is the best approach. It might be a good idea to post names to a more visible place as they come in (wiki page?) as it can be hard to dig through these Bugzilla entries after a while. > I assumed that Patrick's proposal is to find a good name for e4's equivalent of > the "RCP", not rename the 3.x RCP. Patrick, is this correct? That is one of my questions. My initial thought was to rename and rebrand the new e4 RCP only, but would it be confusing to leave the 3.x RCP as is? This also relates to versioning. Should the rebranded RCP be version 1.0 (tracking e4 0.9 M1/M2/..) or should it be version 4.0? I'd like to hear what others think about this. Underlying all of this is that RCP has never been a "real" project, as far as I can tell. It is not included in the project list nor does it have a high-level project page (eclipse.org/rcp). It has a wiki page, but that's it. Of course Eclipse Platform is a project and that only adds to the confusion for potential RCP developers. I don't mean to suggest that RCP become a full-fledged project with all that this entails, but is it possible to start marketing it as a project without making it one? For instance, can it have it's own version numbers or does it need to track Eclipse IDE versioning? Can it have a high-level project page? I think potential RCP developers get the sense that RCP is a bit of an afterthought, and treating it like a full-fledged project would help. I'd be happy to open a Bugzilla entry to get a project page, if that's an option. Otherwise, I guess we should focus on the wiki page for the rebranding work. (In reply to comment #5) > +1 > > As for the alternative name for Eclipse RCP, emphasizing the "modilar UI" side, > I'd personally like something related to "Ikebana" :) We have our first suggestion! Personally I'm a sucker for Japanese names (I really like "Bento" but Apple owns that). I like the natural aspect of Ikebana and it also has a visual component (flower arrangement, for those who are just joining) which is nice. I'll try to think of some others in a similar vein. Neil Bartlett always makes the point that the lego-brick analogy for components and modularity is incorrect. Modules aren't cold dead bricks. They should be thought of as organic or "live" things that can interact and adapt to each other. The analogy he prefers is bees, who coordinate their activity in the pursuit of a goal. In any case, I think looking to more organic (or biological) systems/arts for inspiration is a good idea. How about the eclipse RIP (Rich Internet Platform)? (In reply to comment #12) > Even so, because brand establishment or change takes quite a bit of time, it > might be a good idea to start promoting and using the new brand/name even before > the e4 "product" is available. I agree. My preference would be to pick a name (by the end of the summer?) and create a page to market/rebrand the new RCP. Preferably this would be a high-level project page, but we could use a wiki page if need be. I'd like to see the page link to releases that coorindate with the e4 releases, along with RCP-specific tutorials, articles, videos. I'd be happy to start creating some content, and also to start working on the page once a name is chosen. Here's a sample marketing pitch for the page: ---- *Bringing the power of modularity to the user interface* Talk about benefits of modularity, dynamic behavior, service-based architectures, etc. This framework leverages all of these, allowing you to create powerful and flexible applications. <image showing multiple bundles contributing to a user interface, arrows from bundles to user-interface elements> *Choose the right tool for the job* Talk about common workbench providing glue (or another analogy) that allows you to combine user interface elements created with a variety of technologies. <image showing multiple technologies feeding into a single application. Application window in middle with technologies surrounding it. Arrows pointing into application> *Write once, deploy anywhere* Talk about how the code you write with this framework can be deployed on the desktop, web or mobile devices with few modifications if any. <image of a single application with outbound arrows to app in browser, on desktop and on a mobile phone, maybe use Wayne Beaton's sample app here> (In reply to comment #15) > How about the eclipse RIP (Rich Internet Platform)? RIP has a negative connotation (in the US at least) as it stands for "Rest In Peace" which is used on tombstones. Your comment brings up an interesting point, though, which is how to deal with the multiple deployment platforms associated with the framework. I have questions like: * Is RAP truly going to be folded into the framework after e4 or will it continue to exist on its own? * Is there any possibility that eRCP could be brought into the rebranding? In my fantasy world, the rebranding might result in something like: X Web X Desktop X Mobile Or maybe e4 will result in a single framework that can be deployed to the desktop or web (not sure how mobile fits in here) and multiple "flavor" modifiers aren't necessary. It would depend, I think, on how releases are packaged (multiple downloads or only one). "supernova" "milky" "moon" "universe" "Ursa Major" "Prometheus" to stay in the universe system idea IMHO: Basically replacing an acronym (RCP) with another one is a non-idea Should be a "nice" name that could live without eclipse name. a plus if it can tell about the platform idea with plugins (like constellations and extended to Greek mythology, and extended again to other mythologies....) First I like the idea of "Eclipse" being part of the name of every project. Second, a name should say something about a thing's purpose. so let's call it "Eclipse Chassis" "Eclipse Skeleton" or "Eclipse Stem" (In reply to comment #19) > First I like the idea of "Eclipse" being part of the name of every project. > > Second, a name should say something about a thing's purpose. > > so let's call it > "Eclipse Chassis" > "Eclipse Skeleton" > or > "Eclipse Stem" I agree that the name should relate to a purpose. As for including "Eclipse", my preference would be to separate that from the name selection. Whatever name we choose here can be prefixed with "Eclipse" if that is what people prefer. I just added a wiki page to keep track of names as they are suggested. http://wiki.eclipse.org/E4/Renaming_Eclipse_RCP I also added a link to this page in the "Ongoing Work" section of the main e4 page. Hope this is ok, if not let me know. The page also contains a short list of name "seeds", or concepts that might be useful in coming up with names. Here's what I have so far: * Modular UI * Components * UI Framework * Kernel (for Eclipse) * Organic modularity (bees vs blocks) * Flexibility (multiple technologies/multiple deployments) * Astronomy/Mythology If anyone has additional concepts they'd like added, just let me know (or change the wiki page, of course). RCP is definitely a less than optimal name. With the creation of e4, as has been pointed out, we have an opportunity to pick a better name. To that end, I'd suggest we leave the existing RCP alone. FWIW I have always look at/thought of e4 as "the new RCP". In that sense, the new RCP already has a name; e4. Perhaps the first question that should be asked is "what are we naming"? If X is picked, what is "not X"? Having several different incantations of X (X desktop, X web, X...) is great. This is like Eclipse Platform, Eclipse Modeling Framework, Eclipse <...> or the Apache example that was given. Looking at it that way, Eclipse is the tooling brand and X is another brand. FWIW, we are currently undertaking a new brand creation effort around runtime technology at Eclipse. This is intended to, among other things, break the "tooling mold" into which all Eclipse technologies are currently placed by the community at large. I frequently get asked if RCP/SWT/... is part of the runtime effort. I answer that it is! Just as Equinox, EMF, EclipseLink, BIRT, ... are. RCP and the runtime effort are usage models and mindsets that demand particular capabilities and drive assumptions etc. The runtime branding effort (not the project) is about inclusion and the characterization of Eclipse technology available for use in wide ranging runtime scenarios: rich clients, server (rich and otherwise), embedded, persistence, ... Perhaps the X being talked about here should be the same as the X we are looking for in the runtime space? Patrick's comparison of Eclipse to Apache is right. Everyone understands the 'Apache X', 'Apache Y' nomenclature and what it indicates. Whereas whenever I run an Eclipse RCP training course I find myself explaining what 'Eclipse' is - and this is to people who have already paid good money to be on the course and ought to know why they are there! I also explain that Eclipse's various projects and distributions are nothing more than specific collections of components (i.e. plug-ins). We put together selections of these as we please to create a codebase with certain capabilities. This applies to a JDT user who adds SVN connectivity through Subclipse or Subversive, an RCP developer who adds Help or the Forms API to the RCP SDK, etc. etc. Hence I suggest the "Eclipse" prefix followed by somthing that indicates how users can pick'n'mix the capabilities/competences/facilities/faculties (great thing a thesaurus) that they want. My suggestion is "Facet", e.g. "Eclipse Facets - Web" "Eclipse Facets - Desktop" "Eclipse Facets - Mobile" The normal meaning of facet is one of the angled faces of a jewel. Which is appropriate, and a wonderful visual metaphor. Soemone with an ounce of visual flair (i.e. not me) could exploit this for a great logo and graphics. PS : I know that the term 'facets' is used in certain JEE projects, but I am sure the user community could distinguish between a technical concept and a brand. PPS : Google tells me there is also a Java Facets database from Gemstone - again not something that would be too confusing. (In reply to comment #22) > RCP is definitely a less than optimal name. With the creation of e4, as has > been pointed out, we have an opportunity to pick a better name. To that end, I'd > suggest we leave the existing RCP alone. My guess is that Boris agrees with this as well. So yes let's leave the existing RCP alone. If anyone has a different opinion, speak up. > FWIW I have always look at/thought of e4 as "the new RCP". In that sense, the > new RCP already has a name; e4. Perhaps the first question that should be asked > is "what are we naming"? If X is picked, what is "not X"? While a lot of the e4 work involves redefining RCP, I usually think of e4 as being related to the next release of the IDE. But even if e4 was synonymous with RCP, I don't think it would make a very good name. > Having several different incantations of X (X desktop, X web, X...) is great. > This is like Eclipse Platform, Eclipse Modeling Framework, Eclipse <...> or the > Apache example that was given. Looking at it that way, Eclipse is the tooling > brand and X is another brand. > > FWIW, we are currently undertaking a new brand creation effort around runtime > technology at Eclipse. This is intended to, among other things, break the > "tooling mold" into which all Eclipse technologies are currently placed by the > community at large. I understand your motivations for wanting to do this, but I'm wondering if it's too early to give up on Eclipse as a generic brand (like Apache). Eclipse is definitely associated with tooling and I know it's very hard to change the concepts associated with a name. Having said that, Apache has succeed and provides a good example of how to do this. Also, it seems like it might be confusing to inject an intermediate name/brand between Eclipse and the runtime projects. I guess the question is whether the benefits of a runtime-specific brand outweigh the potential confusion. I'm not against creating a runtime brand, by any means. Just trying to think through the implications. > I frequently get asked if RCP/SWT/... is part of the runtime effort. I answer > that it is! Just as Equinox, EMF, EclipseLink, BIRT, ... are. RCP and the > runtime effort are usage models and mindsets that demand particular capabilities > and drive assumptions etc. The runtime branding effort (not the project) is > about inclusion and the characterization of Eclipse technology available for use > in wide ranging runtime scenarios: rich clients, server (rich and otherwise), > embedded, persistence, ... > > Perhaps the X being talked about here should be the same as the X we are looking > for in the runtime space? Yes, the real question here is whether a new runtime name would eliminate (or satisfy) the need to rename RCP. So if we picked name X to represent all runtime projects, then RCP would be represented by X Desktop, X Web, and maybe X Mobile. Would you then have X BIRT, X EclipseLink, X Equinox, etc? My first reaction is that the Desktop/Web modifier after a runtime brand name wouldn't provide sufficient differentiation from other projects. For example if we have X BIRT and X Desktop, I think potential RCP developers might be confused about what X really was. What I want is to be able to tell potential developers that you need X and this is exactly what X is. In this case, I want to be able to say that X is a modular framework for creating user interfaces based on OSGi. Again, I'm not against creating a separate runtime branding. I just think that we would still need a new name for RCP apart from the new runtime name. I'm curious to hear what others think. I think short names have more success. What about "Neo", from Matrix Vincenzo Caselli (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #22) > > RCP is definitely a less than optimal name. With the creation of e4, as has > > been pointed out, we have an opportunity to pick a better name. To that end, I'd > > suggest we leave the existing RCP alone. > > My guess is that Boris agrees with this as well. So yes let's leave the > existing RCP alone. +1 > My first reaction is that the Desktop/Web modifier after a runtime brand name > wouldn't provide sufficient differentiation from other projects. For example > if we have X BIRT and X Desktop, I think potential RCP developers might be > confused about what X really was. What I want is to be able to tell potential > developers that you need X and this is exactly what X is. In this case, I want > to be able to say that X is a modular framework for creating user interfaces > based on OSGi. > > Again, I'm not against creating a separate runtime branding. I just think that > we would still need a new name for RCP apart from the new runtime name. I'm > curious to hear what others think. I agree with Patrick here - if we all think that RCP is not a good enough name, then we need a better name for it, and it would have to be different from a name that applies to all runtime stuff. Just throwing out some more names in case it helps, how about ones that contain "app" (e.g. Eclipse AppCore, AppBase, AppFrame...) or names from the realm of building construction (e.g. Eclipse Pillar, Truss, Beam, Rafter, Deck...)? Interesting blog post on choosing a good name: http://webworkerdaily.com/2009/05/28/how-important-is-a-good-name/ (In reply to comment #24) > While a lot of the e4 work involves redefining RCP, I usually think of e4 as > being related to the next release of the IDE. First line of the e4 website "The mission of the e4 project is to build a next generation platform for pervasive, component-based applications and tools" The next para goes on to say how the eclipse platform has gone beyond tools. e4 is not an IDE. That would be something like Eclipse 4.0. e4 is the platform on which a potential new IDE would be built. At least that is my viewpoint. > But even if e4 was synonymous > with RCP, I don't think it would make a very good name. I was not directly suggesting e4 but rather teasing apart the pieces. > I understand your motivations for wanting to do this, but I'm wondering if it's > too early to give up on Eclipse as a generic brand (like Apache). Just to be clear, it is not me doing/pushing this (though I do support the move). The runtime community and the Foundation marketing team are responding to the "what? you want me to run an IDE on my server to host my app?" reaction we get when talking to anyone outside the runtime cognoscenti. > Yes, the real question here is whether a new runtime name would eliminate (or > satisfy) the need to rename RCP. So if we picked name X to represent all > runtime projects, then RCP would be represented by X Desktop, X Web, and maybe > X Mobile. Would you then have X BIRT, X EclipseLink, X Equinox, etc? > > My first reaction is that the Desktop/Web modifier after a runtime brand name > wouldn't provide sufficient differentiation from other projects. Not sure what you mean here. In comment 17 you were all for the X Web, X Desktop naming convention. What is different about BIRT or EclipseLink? Similarly, comment 0 talks about the e4 effort as UI for Equinox. If X is more or less used to signify "runtime stuff at Eclipse" then this is a UI for runtime stuff at Eclipse. X <insert UI names here>. Are you thinking that X has to have some sort of essential UI-ness? RCP is more than UI. (In reply to comment #28) > I was not directly suggesting e4 but rather teasing apart the pieces. > > > I understand your motivations for wanting to do this, but I'm wondering if > it's > > too early to give up on Eclipse as a generic brand (like Apache). > > Just to be clear, it is not me doing/pushing this (though I do support the > move). The runtime community and the Foundation marketing team are responding > to the "what? you want me to run an IDE on my server to host my app?" reaction > we get when talking to anyone outside the runtime cognoscenti. I didn't mean to imply that you personally are trying to create a runtime brand. I understand the problem that we face in this area and I hope we can find a good solution. > > Yes, the real question here is whether a new runtime name would eliminate (or > > satisfy) the need to rename RCP. So if we picked name X to represent all > > runtime projects, then RCP would be represented by X Desktop, X Web, and maybe > > X Mobile. Would you then have X BIRT, X EclipseLink, X Equinox, etc? > > > > My first reaction is that the Desktop/Web modifier after a runtime brand name > > wouldn't provide sufficient differentiation from other projects. > > Not sure what you mean here. In comment 17 you were all for the X Web, X > Desktop naming convention. What is different about BIRT or EclipseLink? > Similarly, comment 0 talks about the e4 effort as UI for Equinox. If X is more > or less used to signify "runtime stuff at Eclipse" then this is a UI for runtime > stuff at Eclipse. X <insert UI names here>. Are you thinking that X has to > have some sort of essential UI-ness? RCP is more than UI. I think the best way to describe what I mean is a name tree. What I think you're suggesting is this: Eclipse Runtime (tbd) Desktop Web Mobile BIRT etc. What I'm suggesting is: Eclipse Runtime (tbd) RCP (tbd) Desktop Web Mobile BIRT etc. I'm concerned that if RCP doesn't have a distinct "base" name (prefixing Web, Desktop, Mobile) that it won't have a strong enough identity to be marketed successfully. And yes, conceptually I think this name would represent the concept of a "modular UI framework", aside from any particular deployment target (Web, Desktop, Mobile). Nice to see this discussion. I think the initial intention of reusing components in a non-IDE context is obsolete today. Especially with the activities in the runtime space Eclipse is more than this. In addition the current state of e4-development makes very clear that the usage of Eclipse-components is not scoped to a specific runtime. Because of that a branding in combination with a "runtime-scope", like "Desktop", "Web", etc. makes absolutely no sense. It would be the same mistake which was done with the brand "Eclipse" which is today associated with an IDE (in 99%). > The next para goes on to say how the eclipse platform has gone beyond tools. e4 > is not an IDE. That would be something like Eclipse 4.0. e4 is the platform > on which a potential new IDE would be built. At least that is my viewpoint. I agree on this statement and underline the word "platform". What's the common denominator of all eclipse applications? - Every application needs a runtime, so why is not the brand of the runtime the new brand for RCP? - Every RCP application will require a runtime, also the other projects like BIRT or EclipseLink. > I'm concerned that if RCP doesn't have a distinct "base" name (prefixing Web, > Desktop, Mobile) that it won't have a strong enough identity to be marketed > successfully. What do you exactly understand under a "strong identity" for such a diverse construct like Eclipse? I would say it's better to have a "weak identity" (whatever this means), than a wrong identity. > And yes, conceptually I think this name would represent the > concept of a "modular UI framework", aside from any particular deployment > target (Web, Desktop, Mobile). This would not satisfy the possibilities eclipse provides. Today people are already building applications based on the RCP framework without any ui that run not on a desktop. How to brand these applications? +1 to find a good runtime brand name. This will underline the charactistic of every eclipse runtime based application. > > +1 to find a good runtime brand name. This will underline the charactistic of > every eclipse runtime based application. > The RT PMC and I are working on creating an EclipseRT brand/logo. The first step is to create a logo/graphic and then role out how to use it. Details can be found at http://wiki.eclipse.org/RT_Marketing_page (In reply to comment #30) Thanks for the thoughtful input. I'm glad we're having this discussion as well. > I think the initial intention of reusing components in a non-IDE context is > obsolete today. Especially with the activities in the runtime space Eclipse is > more than this. In addition the current state of e4-development makes very clear > that the usage of Eclipse-components is not scoped to a specific runtime. > Because of that a branding in combination with a "runtime-scope", like > "Desktop", "Web", etc. makes absolutely no sense. It would be the same mistake > which was done with the brand "Eclipse" which is today associated with an IDE > (in 99%). > > What's the common denominator of all eclipse applications? - Every application > needs a runtime, so why is not the brand of the runtime the new brand for RCP? - > Every RCP application will require a runtime, also the other projects like BIRT > or EclipseLink. What I'm trying to understand is why there needs to be a single branded runtime. It seems to me that there are a variety of runtimes that could be used depending on your project's requirements. You could use Equinox alone, Equinox + other core bundles to create a "headless" app, RCP to create an app with a workbench, etc. An example from the Apache world is that Felix = OSGi Framework, Karaf = Felix + some additional features, ServiceMix = Karaf + ESB stuff. All of these are runtimes, but they are branded separately and have specific target audiences. I can see why we would want a runtime brand to serve to distinguish projects types, and according to the link Ian posted that would be EclipseRT. But I would argue that beneath this there is room for a variety of runtimes targeted at specific audiences. > > I'm concerned that if RCP doesn't have a distinct "base" name (prefixing Web, > > Desktop, Mobile) that it won't have a strong enough identity to be marketed > > successfully. > What do you exactly understand under a "strong identity" for such a diverse > construct like Eclipse? I would say it's better to have a "weak identity" > (whatever this means), than a wrong identity. > > > And yes, conceptually I think this name would represent the > > concept of a "modular UI framework", aside from any particular deployment > > target (Web, Desktop, Mobile). > This would not satisfy the possibilities eclipse provides. > Today people are already building applications based on the RCP framework > without any ui that run not on a desktop. How to brand these applications? I think that again we're coming at this from different perspectives based on having one or more than one runtime. To me, Eclipse RCP has a very specific meaning: it combines various runtime technologies and unifies them via a visual workbench containing perspectives (now optional), editors and views. I would argue that Eclipse RCP is definitely associated with "UI-ness", to quote Jeff. But maybe I'm missing something here. Both you and Jeff have said that people are creating non-UI applications with RCP. Can you give me an example of this? I'm really not trying to be provocative here, just asking. > +1 to find a good runtime brand name. This will underline the charactistic of > every eclipse runtime based application. So it looks like we will have EclipseRT. Is this what you are looking for? Or would there be another name for an "Eclipse runtime" below this - EclipseRT X? And if we had a single name for an Eclipse runtime (either EclipseRT or EclipseRT X), how would we distinguish between usages? Another way of asking this is what would happen to Eclipse RCP? Would there be any way to refer specifically to a runtime combined with a modular workbench? I hope I'm asking these questions properly. I really do want to understand where you're coming from and find the best way forward. (In reply to comment #32) > I would argue that Eclipse RCP is definitely associated with "UI-ness", to > quote Jeff. But maybe I'm missing something here. Both you and Jeff have said > that people are creating non-UI applications with RCP. Can you give me an > example of this? I'm really not trying to be provocative here, just asking. Clarification: my pov is that lots of people are using runtime technology from eclipse to do non-ui applications. RCP, by definition, is Rich (aka UI) Client (aka vaguely not server) Platform. Take away the UI and you have a CP. Put it on a server etc and you have a P. If you think of RCP as all the non IDE uses of the Eclipse platform then that is too broad a definition for too narrowly scoped a thing. I've spent some time brainstorming names. When thinking about renaming RCP it seems to me that we should focus on words that have a visual connotation. As the discussions above about runtimes make clear, there are a variety of runtime scenarios, and I think it's important to convey that RCP = modular UI. The name that I like best so far is "Montage", which is defined by Webster's as: a: a literary, musical, or artistic composite of juxtaposed more or less heterogeneous elements b: a composite picture made by combining several separate pictures It seems to me that Montage conveys the idea that Eclipse RCP is about assembling various visual elements into a unified application. I also like the "heterogeneous" aspect, which seems to fit with the new functionalities that are part of e4. Another advantage of Montage is that it translates well to most European languages. Another name which means much the same thing is "Collage". For some reason Montage seems like a stronger word, especially in junction with "Eclipse", but maybe that's just me. I've also come up with a few other names that have a visual connotation, some of which have a bonus astronomy connection. * Optics (Optix) * Horizon * Descarte (Cartesian projection, but kind of a stretch) * Iris (part of the eye) * Lumen (measure of light) * Candela (measure of light) * Quasar * Redshift * Shoji (Japanese screen room dividers, kind of like a Japanese "Windows") Finally, one last name from the world of food: Gumbo. It's not strongly visual, but conveys combining parts into a whole. It's kind of a fun name, but probably not appropriate. One last comment for the day. Here is a list of names I discarded because they didn't have a visual connotation. Maybe they could be useful in another context. Habitat Bedrock Structure Cornerstone Nucleus Joints Contour Trellis Niwa (Japanese for garden) I left a comment at Patrick's blog (http://rcpquickstart.com/2009/05/26/lets-rename-eclipse-rcp/#comment-3245) and here follow my first name suggestion: * Origami at Wikipedia we have a detailed description about this art: (English) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami (Brazilian Portuguese) http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami This word leads me to think in: - art - fun - modularity and components (each fold play a important role in origamis) - the origami is a visual product, have your own interface. Like the products made with UI Frameworks. - flexibility, astronomy, mythology, and much more. Researching a little I've found this: Origami Astronomy: The Art and Science of a Giant Folding Space Telescope (20 February, 2002) http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/origami_design_020220-1.html (here the Galileo team is referenced :) and this: The Origami Resolution (4 January, 2008) http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=935?=rss Finally, I think this name is suitable to meet the different kind of platforms (Web, Mobile, Desktop), because sometimes "each platform has your own set of possible folding, but the final product is the same". Just another quick idea: Tangram, as in the puzzle game that has a small set of simple pieces out of which you can build a surprisingly rich set of shapes. (In reply to comment #36) > I left a comment at Patrick's blog > (http://rcpquickstart.com/2009/05/26/lets-rename-eclipse-rcp/#comment-3245) and > here follow my first name suggestion: > > * Origami I really like this name but I'm not sure Microsoft[1] would be happy :-/ ... [1] http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/umpc/default.mspx I'd like to suggest a plan and a timeline for the renaming process, and I'd appreciate any ideas people might have. Here's what I'm thinking. 1. Allow names to be collected until August 1st. I'll post one or two more times on my blog and newsletter to solicit names. If anyone else wants to put out a call for names, that would be helpful. People can either edit the wiki page directly or comment here or email names to me and I'll add them. BTW, I'd like to propose that names all have some sort of visual connotation, and that we include this in any request for names. I'd also suggest that we remove any current names from the list that don't meet this requirement. If I don't hear back from people on this, I'll make that change next week. 2. Do a public survey (surveymonkey or something like that) in early August to narrow down the list to 5(?) names. 3. Select from those 5 names sometime in August, which would I guess include a trademark review. If there is a specific process for vetting and selecting a name, could someone provide more info? By September 1 we would have a name and could then start working on branding. This is a whole other subject, and I'd suggest we open separate Bugzilla entries for tasks related to this. Does this sound ok? Should this process be done faster or slower? Does a survey make sense or should this all be handled in the Bugzilla comments? Just posted a request for naming ideas on my blog: http://rcpquickstart.com/2009/07/22/renaming-eclipse-rcp-update/ As I mentioned in my last comment, I'll wait a few weeks (no 8/1 deadline) and then move on to a public poll. If anyone has suggestions or concerns about this, let me know. "Eclipse - Jupiter System (EJS)" Jupiter is the planet with the most moons inside our solar system. Jupiter together with its moons is known as Jupiter System. There’re two strong relations to Eclipse RCP. First the Galilean moons: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. These moons names are also names of past major Eclipse releases (3.x). Each of that past releases introduces important new techniques and specifications that for us today affect your meaning of Eclipse RCP. Second if you follow this document the name should honour some ‘seeds’ or concepts. There’re four strong technical points: Modular UI, Components, UI Framework and Kernel. Each point could be translated into one of the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are the biggest moons of Jupiter, but by far not all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Jupiter). In fact Jupiter has 63 confirmed moons. The diversity of the Eclipse RCP can be demonstrated by this analogy. The 63 moons don't convince me. I need 64 at least. These names are bad because they are meanngless! Just call the thing what it is. That was so great about the name RCP is 1. Rich 2. Client 3. Platform. Everybody got it. Self-explaining. The counter examples can be found e.g. at Apache where they use a lot of confusing names and nobody can remember or guess what is what. See http://apache.org/, even more name in the incubator. The only quality such names have are that they are short. Is Excalibur compatible with Chayenne. Does Jackrabbit eat XML files or is Qpid for that? Maybe confusing it with Lenya or Wicket. What's Camel doing with Beehive? There are good names. Hibernate, ServiceMix, SpamAssassin, XML Beans, MyFaces, Buildr, Archiva. I guess you can associate some functionality with each of them. I vote for the pattern X Y Plattform, choose X and Y. A three-letter acronym. Prefixing it with Eclipse makes it the Eclipse X Y Platform, short Eclipse XYP. So, please choose a name that implies what the thing is. If X and Y have meaning, that is carried along with the name and does not have to be explained, and possibly misunderstood and forgotten. RCP was/is such a good name for the 3.x thing. (In reply to comment #42) This is a good discussion. 1. RCP is meaningfull already, so changing can confuse people 2. RCP is used outside of eclipse ecosystem (for RIA, even some netbeans users a reusing netbeans RCP...) 3. not true that some words like Jupiter does not express what RCP is... 4. but +1 for the fact that SpamAssasin or Hibernate sounds good name and we may get inspired from this. 5. People got used of Galileo, Europa... names so choosing a similar name can put RCP under the projectors Kind of balancing what impact you want to reach... btw, is a vote from people enough to decide on the name? Guess the eclipse board has a word to say right? Use the name Eclipse PeriXXX e.g. closest to Eclipse, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis. Some suggestions: Eclipse Pericentre Eclipse Perigee, Eclipse Perihelion Eclipse Periapsis (in reply to comment #43) > btw, is a vote from people enough to decide on the name? Guess the eclipse > board has a word to say right? Right, the poll will be used to narrow down the names to a short list, but not to make the actual selection. BTW, can anyone tell me about the formal process for getting a name approved? I assume names must go through some sort of review process. In issue 283993, I proposed 4.x++ have the opportunity to consider one of these
* Parameswara
* Gandhi
* Ayutthaya
* Sun-Yatsen
* Mendela
* Tiananmen
* Majapahit
* Chulalongkorn
* Mahabhrata
* Ayurveda
* Darfur
* Genghiz
I was particularly interested in Ayurveda because it signifies a smooth flowing internal system.
Param-eswara, besides being the names of a Malaccan emperor as well as a Hindu chief-deity, means Supreme Lord in Sanskrit. But if we modify it slightly, to Paramaswara - it would mean Supreme voice/expression - quite fitting name for the ambitions of the Eclipse IDE.
On the other hand, Eclipse Mendela would be so extremely exciting a name, but Mendela has a legal team that restricts the use of the Mendela name.
Or Eclipse Bamiyan - to commemorate the unthoughtful destruction of the world's oldest art relics. Not to commemorate the destroyers but the destroyed relics.
I was thinking how about Eclipse Mother Theresa or Eclipse Aungsan Sukyi - but that's so ungeeky and is a mouth-full.
I know it's been used before bug I like: Corona It's the shiny chrome for an eclipse? The Ecilpse RCP renaming poll just went live and will be active for two weeks (until 9/6). Announcement ------------ http://www.modumind.com/2009/08/24/renaming-eclipse-rcp-vote-now/ Poll --- http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D9ZYFUQdiRI4b2kNPE7Rwg_3d_3d Regards, --- Patrick For anyone who would like to view the survey results while it is in progress, here is the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=L5Jap6ce_2fcdXYFsJVUxZhS_2fq23Twd7n_2bwrQHHUpMOvQ_3d RCP is another shape of the Eclipse Platform (the one of four top projects) in my understanding. It is not like the name of BIRT, EMF or other sub-projects. All of them are relatively independent technology. It seem no enough reason for me to say why the name of "RCP" is horrible... However, if all guys in the community like to have a new name, no problem for me:) cc... Eclipse Molecules because "Molecules are small particles that make up all living and non-living things" My proposal is the name "Sirius" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius). It is related with the Eclipse name itself and all the code names of the Eclipse releases. Not to mention the Equinox framework. Ok, the Eclipse RCP renaming survey is complete (it ran for two weeks). You can view the full results of the survey at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=L5Jap6ce_2fcdXYFsJVUxZhS_2fq23Twd7n_2bwrQHHUpMOvQ_3d Survey Summary ------------- Here is a summary of the results. We had a total of 472 submissions, and the top 5 names were: Eclipse RCP - 169 Eclipse Platform - 51 Aurora - 48 Corona - 38 Tangram - 32 So what to make of these results? First of all, I'm not surprised that Eclipse RCP came out so far on top. My interpretation of the poll is that it was really asking two questions: 1. Do you want to change the name of Eclipse RCP? 2. If so, what would you like to change it to? Looking back on things, I should have structured the poll that way to start with. But in any case my interpretation is that 35% of the respondents would like to keep the existing name and the remaining 65% are split among the remaining names. Now let's look at the remaining names: * Eclipse Platform -This is really equivalent to keeping the existing name and I'm guessing it was the second choice for many who chose Eclipse RCP (respondents could choose 3 names). * Corona - There is already an Eclipse project with this name and it should have been excluded from the survey. That leaves Aurora and Tangram, with Aurora clearly the favorite of the two. So what now? ----------- I'd like to hear what other think? Do you feel that the survey responses mean that we should keep the name Eclipse RCP, or should we proceed? My suggestion would be the following: 1. Get whatever approval we need to use the name Aurora (or Tangram, if Aurora is unacceptable). I don't know what this means in terms of evaluating trademark conflicts, etc. Can someone from the foundation provide some guidance here? Maybe Ian? 2. I'd also like to see some responses in this thread indicating whether people would support the name Aurora, particularly from people on the e4 team (Boris?, Kevin?). If you were initially supportive of renaming, please at least respond with a -1 or +1 on Aurora. 3. If there is agreement on moving forward, I would suggest having one last poll that simply asks whether people prefer Aurora or Eclipse RCP. We would have to abide by the results of the poll at that point. Regards, --- Patrick In my personal opinion the result shows that the majority does not want a change in the name "Eclipse RCP". (In reply to comment #53) > 1. Get whatever approval we need to use the name Aurora (or Tangram, if Aurora > is unacceptable). I don't know what this means in terms of evaluating trademark > conflicts, etc. Can someone from the foundation provide some guidance here? > Maybe Ian? Once there is agreement on a name, then I can help take it thru legal review. Since it costs money to do the review, it would be nice to have just one name. > 3. If there is agreement on moving forward, I would suggest having one last > poll that simply asks whether people prefer Aurora or Eclipse RCP. We would > have to abide by the results of the poll at that point. It seems to me there is not strong agreement to move forward. Aurora had about 10% of the vote, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for a significant change. btw, I did vote to keep the Eclipse RCP name. (In reply to comment #55) >> 3. If there is agreement on moving forward, I would suggest having one last >> poll that simply asks whether people prefer Aurora or Eclipse RCP. We would >> have to abide by the results of the poll at that point. > It seems to me there is not strong agreement to move forward. Aurora had about > 10% of the vote, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for a significant > change. Hi Ian, Thanks for the response. The goal of the survey was always to narrow down a list of 70 names to a short list of 5 or so. To me, it's not surprising that the most popular names were in the 10% range. It's also not surprising to me that Eclipse RCP came in at 35%, but I think it could easily lose to another name one-on-one. Having said all that, I'd need to see some significant support from others in the community (and the e4 team in particular) to take this forward. If we don't hear anything in the next few days, this entry should probably be closed and I'll post an announcement on my blog. At least I won't have to change my business cards :-) I agree that the small response in favor of Aurora is not nearly enough to move forward with. Furthermore, I think a lot of people will ultimately be dissatisfied with a name like that, one that does not tell a person what the project might be about if he doesn't already know. As Frank said above in comment #42, we don't want the Apache mess with names that nobody can remember or guess what they mean. Aurora is just another pretty word that adds no value, IMO. I think a one-on-one poll (Aurora vs. "keep it the same") would definitely be prudent; problem is, you might run into poll-fatigue as the community loses interest after they've already voted once. Call it a run-off election, maybe that'll help :-) Then I was taking the survey I had not the impression that: "The goal of the survey was always to narrow down a list of 70 names to a short list of 5..." My impression was that this was a final selection for the potential future name for Eclipse RCP. As this was my impression I feel that the purpose of the survey is now re-defined (after running it). But perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps I don't recall the question of the survey correctly. Can you please post the question which was issued in the survey? (In reply to comment #56) > (In reply to comment #55) > Having said all that, I'd need to see some significant support from others in > the community (and the e4 team in particular) to take this forward. If we don't > hear anything in the next few days, this entry should probably be closed and > I'll post an announcement on my blog. Patrick, IMHO, you are correct to look for support from the committers, they are the key decision makers. They need to agree and implement any name change. Polls are useful to sample community opinion but in the end the committers get to make the final decision. (in reply to comment #58) Lars, I certainly don't want to be perceived as re-defining the poll after the fact. Here are some of my previous comments. * From the discussion above (comment #39) >2. Do a public survey (surveymonkey or something like that) in early August to >narrow down the list to 5(?) names. * From the blog post announcing the survey at http://www.modumind.com/2009/08/24/renaming-eclipse-rcp-vote-now/ >I want to make it clear that while this poll will help to narrow down the list, it will not wholly >determine the final selection." The actual poll question: >This is your chance to provide input into the renaming of the Eclipse Rich Client Platform. The names >below have been submitted over the last 3 months by members of the Eclipse community. Now it's >your turn to vote! > >For some background on the renaming process, check out the following links: > >http://www.modumind.com/2009/05/26/lets-rename-eclipse-rcp/ >https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=277947 >http://wiki.eclipse.org/E4/Renaming_Eclipse_RCP > >Also, a few notes: > >* The new name will apply only to the new version of Eclipse RCP based on the e4 project. The >existing Eclipse RCP implementation, and all 3.x upgrades would continue to use the old name. > >* The top choices based on the results of this poll will be used to create a short-list of names. The >final selection of a name will be based not only on the results of this poll but on other considerations >such as trademark issues. --------- But Lars I hear what you're saying and I think many others will have the same interpretation of the poll as you do. In retrospect, we would have gotten a much clearer understanding of respondents' thoughts if I had broken the survey into two questions, as I mentioned in comment #53. But that can't be helped now. I think the best thing to do is to make the poll the final verdict on this question and agree to apply the Eclipse RCP name to the work coming out of the e4 project. I'll write up a blog post later today announcing the result. I'd also like to say that I hope there aren't any hard feelings about any of this. I've tried to manage this process in as transparent a way as possible and have never wanted to take the community in a direction it didn't want to go. We obviously all want what is best for Eclipse RCP, even if we differ on some of the details. It might be hard to realize: it's over! Patrick, thanks for the explanation. I see that my preception was incorrect. Sorry for this and thanks again for the clarification. (In reply to comment #60) > I'd also like to say that I hope there aren't any hard feelings about any of > this. I've tried to manage this process in as transparent a way as possible and > have never wanted to take the community in a direction it didn't want to go. We > obviously all want what is best for Eclipse RCP, even if we differ on some of > the details. Patrick, I think you did a great job on this topic. Thank you for leading the discussion in such a professional manner! Thanks for the kind words, Ian. I've posted the final results here: http://www.modumind.com/2009/09/09/renaming-eclipse-rcp-final-results/ and am closing this entry as WORKSFORME ;-) (copied from a comment on Patrick's blog, thought I should post this here too) Patrick, Thanks a lot for taking the initiative on this, even though it doesn't look like we'll be able to get rid of "Eclipse RCP" as the name for the rich client platform. The only problem I see with the name "Eclipse RCP" going forward is our experimental "foray" into the web UI space where "rich client" is not entirely accurate anymore. But I guess we'll be able to deal with that as things become more concrete. (In reply to comment #65) > The only problem I see with the name "Eclipse RCP" going forward is our > experimental "foray" into the web UI space where "rich client" is not entirely > accurate anymore. But I guess we'll be able to deal with that as things become > more concrete. I don't have a problem with the name even in that light; many web/browser-based UIs can be called "rich" because of the extensive use of DHTML, AJAX, etc. The good thing about the name "rich" is that it is open to interpretation; the problem with the name "rich" is that it is open to interpretation. :-) (In reply to comment #65) > The only problem I see with the name "Eclipse RCP" going forward is our > experimental "foray" into the web UI space where "rich client" is not entirely > accurate anymore. But I guess we'll be able to deal with that as things become > more concrete. Boris If there is something 'new' then I would urge you to create a new name. I agree 'rich client' won't be helpful for the web UI space. (In reply to comment #64) > Thanks for the kind words, Ian. I've posted the final results here: > > http://www.modumind.com/2009/09/09/renaming-eclipse-rcp-final-results/ > > and am closing this entry as WORKSFORME ;-) As I outlined in the blog comment [1] I think that the conclusion that the majority of people want to keep the existing name is flawed. 64.2% (almost two thirds) of votes were cast _against_ "Eclipse RCP". There is a good chance that this vote suffered from the Condorcet paradox[2]. If for example the people who voted for the other 4 top entries (Eclipse Platform, Aurora, Corona, Tangram) would have decided on their one candidate beforehand and "pooled" their votes, this candidate would have reached (51+48+38+32)=169 votes as well. Throw in a few votes from the "long tail" and the result isn't quite as clear cut anymore. I think the issue here is that many people wouldn't really mind one of the other names, as long as it is not "Eclipse RCP". This doesn't get reflected in the voting process, since you can only cast one result. The voting on a "survey" website is inherently flawed. In a survey there usually is only one applicable option ("Male/Female/Other") but for voting preferences the picture is a little different. I appreciate Patrick's work in setting up this survey, but I think this should only be seen as a first milestone, with the result being that the overwhelming majority DOES indeed want a different name. I am sure that Patrick, like many others, was not aware of the inherent problems of "One vote, First past the post wins" voting. This kind of voting is simple to understand, implement and very popular, but fails to satisfy several voting system criteria. It is especially vulnerable in situations like these with a few popular choices and a lot of less popular ones. Other open source projects (debian, gentoo and KDE for example) have thus adopted the Schulze method[3] which offers better coverage of these voting criteria. I personally think that this poll should be repeated with a more fine-grained voting method, maybe with a short list of entries, but ideally with the full list. Who knows? Maybe there is a name that only got 2% but because it wasn't anyones prime candidate, but the second choice for a lot of people. [1] http://www.modumind.com/2009/09/09/renaming-eclipse-rcp-final-results/#comment-1582 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Now that I got my process concerns out of the way, now my personal thoughts on the subject matter. I think "RCP" is fine. When you look at what webapps do these day, calling them not "rich" seems wrong. Adobe (RIA) seems to think so too. Regarding alternatives: what is most important for me (apart from pronounceability) is collision-freeness - or googleability if you will. I cringe everytime I want to look up some eclipse automation feature, and get bombarded with links about some Japanese car. On the other hand some car enthusiast might be wondering whether these new-fangled Eclipse IDE and Eclipse RCP models are hybrids running on coffee beans of all things. (Meanwhile there is an astronomer quietly sobbing in a corner somewhere). TL;DR: the new name should produce no more than 1000 hits on google. I agree with Manuel's demonstration of the flaw in the voting process, and that there is no consensus on the Eclipse RCP name. Some people are attached to the Eclipse RCP name, for whatever reason, and I understand their reluctance to accept to do another poll but I believe it would be best for the Eclipse RCP community to reach a real, democratic consensus on the question. There could be a vote with a few questions. Please keep in mind that they're just proposals and I am sure we could agree on a better method/questions (cf. the links Manuel posted). "Would you be OK with a name change for Eclipse RCP for e4?" * Yes * No "Do you want the name Eclipse RCP to be changed for e4?" * Yes, a lot (casts 2 upvotes) * Yes, a bit (cast 1 upvote) * Don't care the least bit (silent vote) * Not really (cast 1 downvote) * Not at all (casts 2 downvotes) "Which name would you prefer among alternative proposals?" * Aurora * Platform * Tangram * Corona (NB: I think here Tangram has the best relevance for Google searches with respect to Manuel's point ; maybe we should have another step deciding with names that don't collide too much with other stuff) After that, we could have one final vote, Eclipse RCP vs New name. People would have had time to understand the underlying issues and to make their minds, so they would still have the opportunity to prefer the name they did not chose vs Eclipse RCP, or the opposite, and most of all, they would have had time to change their minds. Patrick asked me to crosspost a comment I posted on his blog for a more personal view of the matter. Here I go: "There are a few other problems I see and experience daily with the name Eclipse RCP: - a lot of Google searches end up being about the Eclipse IDE - clients and other developers who never used it think it’s Eclipse IDE, that the result will look like it ; sometimes they’re prejudiced against Eclipse IDE (because of being “bloated” and “slow”, their words) and that makes it even harder to convince to go the Eclipse RCP route. I personally voted for Tangram as it is a relatively low used keyword and it represents well the modular / assembly nature of RCP. Also, I believe it is a word that is pronounced the same in most languages (like many Asian words). Creating a brand from scratch takes time, and we Eclipse RCP developers are used of the concept of “Eclipse RCP”, so we don’t see anymore how wrong the name is, but the reaction of the people I sell Eclipse to (and of my company) is revealing. Look how quick the brands Hadoop or Joomla! gained value. I can hardly remember the name before Joomla!’s fork, while at the time it forked people said it was strong and the fork wouldn’t work without the name… Well, after a Google search, it was called: Mambo. I totally forgot about that one. If we keep on using Eclipse RCP, we can expect some more visibility as the platform gets a wider audience, but we will forever be stuck in the situation given the visibility of Eclipse IDE (which is clearly the winner in the IDE space in the companies I worked for). However, if we are to change the Eclipse RCP name, we must do it by the time e4 is released because establishing the new brand will take time! So people say: Apache HTTPd was Apache’s flagship product and now they succeeded in making people see Apache as a collection of tools/frameworks (most for Java). I am not sure the contexts are the same here, but it certainly was a feat that I am not sure the Eclipse community will be able to accomplish (the communities are also very different). Finally, if the Eclipse community were to choose another name for e4 RCP, nothing would be lost. It would be marketed as a new name for Eclipse RCP, and clients who already know about RCP could be told “it’s Eclipse RCP’s new version”. People who see value in Eclipse IDE could be told “it’s Eclipse Aurora/whatever, the framework on which Eclipse IDE is built”. For the rest, it could be simply Tangram (or any other name), a modular, next-gen framework for developing JVM-based applications (if e4 keeps its promise to bring more languages in!). So I agree with Egon, there is no majority for RCP; there were multiple votes and people who chose the “least harm” probably cast a vote for RCP. I think RCP should have been out of this first vote, and in the next vote it should have been a RCP vs new name vote. I understand your decision to stop the process given the reluctance of some (cf Bugzilla) but I am afraid that this is our last “go” at this. I believe an idea has to be proposed a few times before it makes its way (and there is sufficient debate), and the first time the answer is often negative. We cannot know if this answer has more to do with the changing of the name being a bad idea, or simply the conservative side of the human nature, but it would be sad to just let it go without asking again with a poll (with fewer options). We need to do what’s best for Eclipse and the ecosystem around it." Dear all, if the efforts of further development of Eclipse/RCP and the discussed evolution to "e4" should find expression in new name/branding, my proposal is to name it "evoclipse". Arguments for this new brandname: - recognize the eclipse history in the brand - find the evolution in that name - easy to remember - easy to pronounce - close listing position of e4 specific packages "org.evoclipse.xxx" to "org.eclipse.xxx" packages. - sounds modern - no branding conflicts - domain "evoclipse.org" is free. I registered it to safe it. I would donate it to the eclipse foundation for free. I would appreciate, if my idea would support the eclipse future. Michael Schubert Hobby-Eclipse-Enthusiast. -- M i c h a e l S c h u b e r t mailto:Mich@elSchubert.de |