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


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