The capability and requirement stuff[1] is far enough along that real usage is happening, so actual capability names are being created.[2] I wanted to get some input regarding naming conventions for capability names so it doesn't devovle into chaos, and so I don't end up making up a lot of names people hate. The key thing is capabilities need to be namespaced to avoid collisions between capability creators. Beyond that the names should be "good", whatever that means (user friendly, properly targeted, not overly tied to implementation, etc). My initial thinking on this was: 1) The WildFly family projects own the "org.wildfly" namespace. So all capabilities we create fit in that namespace, and no one else puts things there. This I think is a must. 2) Capabilities not used by or provided by the WildFly kernel go in subspace org.wildfly.extension.<name_of_extension>. Idea there was just to avoid naming collisions between different extensions. I don't think 2) is such a great idea any more. A given capability be provided by more than one extension, so there isn't a clean conceptual mapping. And the word "extension" is really an implementation detail. So, I'm inclined to drop the "extension" bit. Any thoughts on this, or other aspects of how to name capabilities? FYI, see [3] for some names of capabilities that will be used by the kernel. [1] The "Runtime" aspect of https://developer.jboss.org/docs/DOC-52712 [2] https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/7596 [3] https://developer.jboss.org/docs/DOC-53383 -- Brian Stansberry Senior Principal Software Engineer JBoss by Red Hat