Re: [rules-dev] name

[Dou Hu]

ILog JRules works pretty well.  Why not JBoss Drools?  Problem with JBoss Rules is we cannot just say "Rules" since it's to generic.



From: Mark Proctor[mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 11:46 PM -07:00
To: Rules Dev List [rules-dev at lists.jboss.org]
Subject: [rules-dev] name

So it's over a year since we changed the name from Drools to JBoss 
Rules. Personally I really dislike <Vendor Name> + <Generic Name> naming 
schemes; especially so for Open Source projects. It's not the vendor 
prefix I dislike, as that adds weight in corporate brand recognition, 
but the generic postfix - leaving you no choice but to refer to the 
project by the full name "JBoss Rules" in all communication and 
throughout that communication; which I find tiresome. Where as ideally, 
say in a presentation, you introduce the project as JBoss + <Strong 
Name> first and then further references in your presentation can just 
use the shortened <Strong name>; emails on the mailing list, being more 
casual, can just drop to the shortened <Strong Name> straight away. It's 
not just a lazyiness of having to use two words, but I feel it makes it 
generally easier on the ears and eyes. With 4.0 coming up we have taken 
the next steps into the world of Declarative programming, so was 
thinking of JBoss DRules or JBoss D-Rules or JBoss drules - allowing the 
DRules to be used standalone to refer to the project in more casual 
communication. Anyone have any thoughts on a year of the "JBoss Rules" name?

Mark
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20070608/b3329d6e/attachment.html