Matt RaibleMatt Raible is a Java Champion and Developer Advocate at Okta. developer.okta.com

The JHipster Mini-Book The JHipster Mini-Book is a guide to getting started with hip technologies today: Angular, Bootstrap, and Spring Boot. All of these frameworks are wrapped up in an easy-to-use project called JHipster.

This book shows you how to build an app with JHipster, and guides you through the plethora of tools, techniques and options you can use. Furthermore, it explains the UI and API building blocks so you understand the underpinnings of your great application.

For book updates, follow @jhipster-book on Twitter.

10+ YEARS


Over 10 years ago, I wrote my first blog post. Since then, I've authored books, had kids, traveled the world, found Trish and blogged about it all.

Should I rename Equinox to AppFuse LE?

I'm curious to know if folks think I should rename Equinox to "AppFuse LE"? LE stands for "Light Edition" in this context, but I'm open to other suggestions. Even though my Equinox project is ranked higher than Eclipse's Equinox project, it's obvious there's a name clash. It seems to make sense for me to change the name since it's a one-man project and Eclipse is a huge organization. AppFuse LE seems like a good descriptive name, as does "AppFuse Light" and "Spring Kickstart".

Eventually, I'd like to figure out a way to merge AppFuse and Equinox. If users could start with something like Equinox (no features) and plug-in the various features, that'd be pretty cool. Some web frameworks (i.e. Struts 2) have a plugin feature, but most don't. I figure we can leverage Struts 2 for all frameworks, and convert to specific frameworks' plugin features if they're added. Of course, we're also looking at OSGi and Spring's OSGi support for our plugin architecture. The only problem with OSGi is it looks pretty complicated compared to Struts 2's plugin system.

The other advantage of changing the name is I could create a new java.net project with SVN support and not have to pay for the CVS -> SVN conversion. Of course, leaving the name the same also makes it pretty easy as there would be no additional work for me. ;-)

Thoughts?

Posted in Java at Nov 13 2006, 09:36:59 AM MST 20 Comments
Comments:

Hey Matt, Would it be practical instead, to merge appfuse and equinox and add an ant or maven arg specifying a light(equinox type) or full (appfuse type) project? -Rick

Posted by Rick Marry on November 13, 2006 at 11:18 AM MST #

I think Rick has a good point. I would see appfuse as your brand name and you should promote that as much as possible.

Posted by reddeagle on November 13, 2006 at 11:40 AM MST #

You should incorporate AppFuse in the name somehow - I think many people recognise the name and associate it correctly - but I'm not so sure people do the same with Equinox. So IMO change it to AppFuse light or KickAppFuse or something

Posted by Niall on November 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM MST #

I had assumed once you had both under Maven 2 the door would be open for merging the two and simplifying your maintenance overhead. I'm probably dreaming, but I had envisioned a web-based AppFuse POM generator where through a series of radio buttons and check boxes a user could select the frameworks, components and features they want included. We could have one default at the low end of the spectrum representing for a minimal project and another default with the kitchen sink. Until that pipe-dream becomes reality, AppFuse LE works for me.

Posted by Bron on November 13, 2006 at 12:18 PM MST #

LightFuse

Posted by eu on November 13, 2006 at 01:22 PM MST #

+1 for Appfuse LE or Appfuse Light Or why don't you rename it to Appfuse and brand the current Appfuse version as Appfuse Professional or Extended or ... I think Appfuse is the by far bigger brand and it is good to merge the project at least name-wise. First change the name and any plugin or target developments will follow to support the same names.

Posted by Karsten Voges on November 13, 2006 at 02:11 PM MST #

Appfuse LE and Appfuse Enterprise Edition !

Posted by reddeagle on November 13, 2006 at 02:41 PM MST #

Appfuse Premium, Appfuse Home, Appfuse Professional, Appfuse XP, Appfuse LE, all would work for me :)

Posted by Ben C on November 13, 2006 at 04:47 PM MST #

AppFuse Light is pretty descriptive and doesn't require an explanation...

Posted by Daniel Gredler on November 13, 2006 at 04:49 PM MST #

Appfuse Lite

Posted by Sanjiv Jivan on November 13, 2006 at 08:09 PM MST #

How about AppFuse SE and AppFuse EE. ;-)

Posted by Matt Raible on November 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM MST #

The Equinox name ties into your Spring book well. There are a number of instances of duplicate names in the software world, so I am not sure a name change "needs" to happen. I guess one option would be AppFuse EQ, which at least keeps some of the name intact.

Posted by Matt F on November 13, 2006 at 11:23 PM MST #

Best is AppFuse 2 Enterprise Edition (A2EE or AEE 2) and AppFuse Standard editon( ASE 2)

Posted by Praveen M on November 14, 2006 at 12:47 AM MST #

"Appfuse Light" sounds better than "Appfuse LE", IMO. Think its the right thing to merge both under one brand.

Posted by Alan on November 14, 2006 at 04:49 AM MST #

I would say ... changing the name would n't be a bad idea as you said AppFuse LE gives much better feeling to start with Light edition and upgrade to the robust version ... so it will be up to you Matt ... I don't think that (if eclipse equinox started before ) some one comes and asks about it .. because there are many projects with same names so just do which is convenient for you ...

Posted by Kiran on November 14, 2006 at 05:51 AM MST #

AppfuseInox?

Posted by Rick Marry on November 14, 2006 at 08:40 AM MST #

what if you kept if really simple at first? just put both code bases under the same (appfuse) directory and then when a developer types ant new, you ask the question: light or full? if they type light, it uses the equinox build.xml else it uses the appfuse build.xml once the app is created it works as usual given the respective type they chose. this way you could get everyone used to using just appfuse and merge it the way you really want to; as time allows.

Posted by Rick Marry on November 14, 2006 at 09:32 AM MST #

Yes, I believe you should. Having both names for very related products is simply confusing. By renaming it to AppFuse LE you tell the user that it is a product that does a subset of what AppFuse does. The name becomes very descriptive and provides clarity! I must say though I agree with comment #17 posted by Rick Marry - indeed having an intelligent script that prompts the user which version they would like to install - light of full - brilliant!

Posted by 207.229.10.238 on November 14, 2006 at 02:42 PM MST #

Here's my vote for ShortFuse.

Posted by Bryan Noll on November 15, 2006 at 03:28 PM MST #

appfox?

Posted by blaataapje on November 16, 2006 at 02:15 AM MST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: Allowed