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@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

    

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users




_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

  

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users