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@codehaus.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 11:46 PM -07:00
To: Rules Dev List [rules-dev@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev