I like both Neos.Solid and Neos.Fusion
it’s not about selling a nice holiday in spain, where emotion if the key decision factor. We sell software … and I don’t really remember a software that touch me emotionaly since a long time. It’s more about the feeling of safety and confort to work with.
Like @aberl say earlier, if I store content I need a solid system, if i build interface i need fluidity / flexibility …
yeah, but I think there’s also something in the middle between boring and ¡grande emoción!
Another un-emotional aspect: Solid sounds pretty inflexible to me. And flexibly structured content is really what the content repository is about.
Anyway, I’m not against Solid, just trying to find something even better.
A direction yet unexplored would be that of crystals. They have a certain beauty, but also a structured. There are even “quasi-chrsytals” which have some sort of flexibility.
Maybe someone is lucky to stumble over a nice word in that area?
That reminds me of
Neos.Fullerene is not exactly the most striking name…
That could work. TypoScript -> Fusion and TYPO3CR -> Plasma.
fusion is a pretty common word in tech, and is part of the name of another language (ColdFusion), so it might not be the best, but it could work.
I still like Fire and Solid best.
For TYPO3CR I love the Neos Solid, sounds sophisticated, trustful and you get already an idea what it is about.
For TypoScript I’d be in favor for Neos Fusion as it connects/melt the solid and the fluid together.
I cannot really like solid yet, also as was pointed out before, the CR is not exactly solid but rather flexible…
I am thinking in terms of containers:
some ideas for words which are more flexible:
these are all terms from fluid dynamics which is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that deals with fluid flow.
I’d also prefer a more flexible name for CR. Tumbler sounds great for me.
Fusion sounds also great for TypoScript
Continuum mechanics includes both solid mechanics and fluid mechanics.
In a way, the dimensions of the CR are on a continuum, as each dimension shines through to the one that comes after it seamlessly. The continuum is a very flexible concept, including solid and flexible parts as needed.
Downside: it is longer and might be harder to spell.
I also like Neos.Fire and Neos.Fusion for TypoScript. Neos.Fusion even a bit more.
Also Neos.Solid for CR is quite good. The connection to stability and trust is more important here than to flexibility IMO.
Why is Neos.Plasma for the CR not an option? Matches nicely to Fusion. (If that was discussed already, sorry. Did not see it as wording suggestion)
More ideas for the CR:
Neos.Flextor (wordplay flexible Storage, maybe to close to tech description)
Then i was search for something in nature which connects to storage or basic necessary stuff like “soil”, but did not hit something nice yet. So these are no real suggestions, more to give hints about the idea i was searching for.
Stumbled across this discussion and the whole Fluid / Solid / Fire thing just made me think about Magma.
Which is kind of solid, fluid and on fire at the same time. I don’t know if it is a good product name, but just wanted to share that thought.
Great. I like Magma.
Neos.Ion could be cool too, but maybe not for CR. It could work for TypoScript, but we seem to have chosen
Neos.Fusion for that. Does anything else need a cool name?
Neos.Media could be
I couldn’t find any crystalline names or any names that suggested safety/strength (like Solid) and flexibility. No names seem to work well when trying to include concepts of content tree, content dimensions, content shine-through/fallback.
Current favorites for CR:
Based on the Neos 3.0 and Flow 4.0 Release Plan, it looks like TYPO3CR will default to Neos.ContentRepository.
@robert any chance of calling for a vote on the name? Maybe Neos.Plasma since you didn’t care for Neos.Solid?
If not those try one of these on (and if not these, ContentRepository works in a blah sort of way):
Neos.Cortex (“neocortex” is the part of our brain that enables complex, hierarchical thinking)
When discussing this issue with @berit she pointed out that an “artificial” name might be more confusing than just using “ContentRepository” (or “CR”) because we already communicated that. And in comparison to Flow, Fusion, Fluid, etc. which are mostly targeted towards developers the content repository is communicated to many different roles (although you could communciate that content/nodes live in a content repository while we have a different name for that component).
That suggests a new element to the naming policy: developer facing tech can have unique names, but elements that regular Neos editors might need to know about should have simple names that suggest their purpose. Thus,
Neos.Media have more descriptive names to make them more intuitive for non-developer users.
OK. I’m convinced:
Uh man, I really love that
But I fully agree to your (and Berits) reasoning not to increase confusion by calling the CR something completely unrelated.
Now we only need to invent something new and crazy that deserves Neos.Cortex as name
As discussed with @robert during the last sprint, let’s keep the technical name for now (and code wise for a long time). We can choose a name, when we really have a product.
Basically when the CR will be fully CQRS + nice user API (Rest, …) that can be a product that we can market, and name it correctly. And in the case Cortex make a lots of sense.
yup. When we are at the point where the content repository is a product on its own (with a user interface, its own documentation for setup, web service interfaces), we still can give it a name. And the new package which provides the user interface can then be called Neos.Cortex or what you like.