What i would keep in mind is that fluid is not the final stage of the process and ist also not necessarily there.
The whole process is more like Flow -> TypoScript2 -> Fluid -> TypoScript2 -> Flow. Since some of us (especially me) like the idea of skipping the fluid part completely in the end and use atomic-typoScript2 for templating it would be great if the new name could also work alone.
To me the thing typoScript2 is about is declarative prototypes/components so imho the name should somehow relate to that.
What about second sight?
I think it’s pretty neat. And even if used without Fluid, TS mostly acts as some kind of connector between different worlds and I think pipes is a nice allegory.
Well, I suppose with that reasoning wormhole could also work
yeah, Pipes / Pipe could work. What makes it a bit difficult though is that it is a plural.
Will it be a Pipes Template? or a Pipe Template? And will Germans mess it up all once again by pronouncing it German?
@mficzel seems to have found the option that sounds the best to me.
Neos.Fire feels better than Neos.Pipes or anything else suggested here.
Then we’ll have Flow, Fluid, Fire, Eel (If Eel had a logo it would have to be an electric eel), Fizzle, FlowQuery, Media, and TYPO3CR.
To make TYPO3CR fit with Fluid and Fire, maybe we could call it the Neos.SolidCR (liquid, gas, and plasma are all fluid states, so that leaves “solid”, though Neos.PlasmaCR has a nice ring to it as well). Content is very substantial after all . But this is off-topic…
Still have the feeling that “Fire” might be too shallow / concrete (after all, we have “Fluid” and not “Water”). So I stumbled over some variations again, which have been among the ideas when we needed to give Flow a name:
Neos Flame or Neos Flames
Neos Spark
What nags me still is that a fire can carry negative connotations. You don’t want to see your website go up in flames, or have some heated discussions about fire which might end up in a flame war …
(by the way, “fire” in Greek isn’t a very exciting word: fotiá)
“Kindle” would have been a nice word. A bit into that direction goes “Sparkle”.
I really like Spark but that is already an apache product. On the other hand it will be quite impossible to find something that was not already used anywhere and still is a word. So Neos.Spark would imho be a nice name.
I think we should collect the available options and just vote.
Fire is wonderful and short with relatively few tech entries on wikipedia.
Fusion might sound less dangerous, but it has more tech entries (including Adobe ColdFusion).
Was bored yesterday and thought about Neos.Shape
Just because I think that’s what it does generally. You can use it to" shape your project".
Don’t know if it’s stupid or not but I quite like it.
Fire seems rather random to me. Pipes would be nice, but I guess the mentioned “language-reasons” are valid (Anyone remembers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Pipes?). Sparkle is an auto-updater tool in widespread use.
A lot of the suggestions here would be fine with me, so far Pipes was the one that stuck most. Sigh. So hard. Maybe Kabelbinder would be good?
So, unless there is a direct conflict, I’d say we see this like most things in music and art: Everything exists elsewhere already, to some degree. And when doing a search for “fusion programming language” you find practically only references to ColdFusion (which is easy to differentiate, IMHO) and functional programming.