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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev