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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
