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(a)lists.jboss.org > [mailto:rules-users-bounces@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(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users