[rules-users] name

[Mark Proctor]

Another option is "JBoss Drools" but prounced as d - rules, not drools.
Mark Proctor wrote:
> heh, the Drools name is a tricky one - some people love it (had a few 
> emails in favour of "JBoss Drools") and some people hate it :( I 
> figured that DRules was a good compromise, but the marketing guys here 
> have already turned that one day - they say they would prefer "JBoss 
> Drools" to "JBoss DRules". It seems that while Drools has issues, it 
> is a brand that people recognise... Although the marketting people 
> still prefer "JBoss Rules" - but then they aren't responsible for 
> talking about "JBoss Rules" all day, every day, and writting blogs and 
> documentation. Where, for some reason I can't put my finger on, having 
> to repeatedly use the full formal name, as it can't be shortened, 
> seems tiresome to both write and say, as well as listen to and read.
>
> Mark
> Michael Rhoden wrote:
>> Wonderful idea. D-rules or some variant is much better than the previous 
>> 2 names :)
>>
>> Telling an exec we saved a lot of time & money using this system called 
>> "Drools" always got me a few looks. Likewise I dont go around saying 
>> the new version of JBoss Hibernate is out.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>  
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org 
>> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:38 PM
>> To: Rules Users List
>> Subject: [rules-users] name
>>
>> I've asked this on dev, thought i'd also ask on user - what's your 
>> opinions on the email below?
>>
>> Mark
>> Mark Proctor wrote:
>>   
>>> 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
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070608/4467d2e8/attachment.html