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