Neos.Cortex (“neocortex” is the part of our brain that enables complex, hierarchical thinking)
And:
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.ContentRepository and Neos.Media have more descriptive names to make them more intuitive for non-developer users.
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.
