Hello,
It's hard to come up with some name that fits well with the hawk and ocular
metaphor. I like what the ELK stack has, they have units called beats (it
evokes some periodicity to me and also it sounds like a bee). imho, "bee"
is the best name for a lightweight agent that collect metrics, but it
doesn't work for us.
What about having multiple agents called "ocular" or okular. Like OpenShift
Okular, WildFly Okular, ${you name it} Okular? Although, flying hawk w/
multiple oculars imply the pull architecture. Hawkular X Agent isn't bad,
but it's too long and too enterprisy, worse is only Red Hat Hawkular
OpenShift Agent :]
jk
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Joel Takvorian <jtakvori(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Other cryptic names we won't use anyway: hawkenshift (sonority
close to
openshift), variant: Hawk'n Shift
But +1 for the desperately serious "Hawkular Kubernetes/OpenShift Agent"
and renaming Hawkular Agent :)
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2016, at 9:20, Thomas Heute wrote:
>
> > Personally I would vote for:
> > - Renaming the existing "Hawkular Agent" to "Hawkular WildFly
Agent"
> and
> > reduce its scope to the embedded WF scenario (+ remote for domains).
> Small
> > in scope == easier to maintain, document, understand...
> > - Name this one "Hawkular Kubernetes Agent", or "Hawkular
OpenShift
> > Agent" if it really depends on OpenShift (but I'm not sure
>
> +1
>
> > PS: I don't think we need yet another cryptic name as GoHawk / Hawkulark
> > (and in theory requires legal implication)
>
> The binary certainly needs one - but something like hawkagent
> should be good enough here.
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev