<div dir="ltr">Other cryptic names we won't use anyway: hawkenshift (sonority close to openshift), variant: Hawk'n Shift<div><br></div><div>But +1 for the desperately serious "Hawkular Kubernetes/OpenShift Agent" and renaming Hawkular Agent :)</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hrupp@redhat.com" target="_blank">hrupp@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 19 Oct 2016, at 9:20, Thomas Heute wrote:<br>
<br>
> Personally I would vote for:<br>
> - Renaming the existing "Hawkular Agent" to "Hawkular WildFly Agent" and<br>
> reduce its scope to the embedded WF scenario (+ remote for domains). Small<br>
> in scope == easier to maintain, document, understand...<br>
> - Name this one "Hawkular Kubernetes Agent", or "Hawkular OpenShift<br>
> Agent" if it really depends on OpenShift (but I'm not sure<br>
<br>
</span>+1<br>
<span class=""><br>
> PS: I don't think we need yet another cryptic name as GoHawk / Hawkulark<br>
> (and in theory requires legal implication)<br>
<br>
</span>The binary certainly needs one - but something like hawkagent<br>
should be good enough here.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
hawkular-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org">hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>