commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Madoni <>
Subject RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 17:26:41 GMT
Perhaps "Jelly" itself should be made into an acronym, which would make it
both meaningful *and* memorable. :)

Some suggestions for J.E.L.L.Y.:

Engine for XML
Language and 
Lots more for 

Join the
Elites who
Love to 
Lay out "executable XML",
Y Not?

Everyone who
Loathes or
Laughs at
Your XML "program"

Eat the

Land Rovers, and
Lincoln Navigators are popular SUV's. Oh, I forgot

Laura with his 
Lovely rendition of the 1950's hit
Yakity Yak

...okay, I'll stop. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren Bish [] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:44 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

My first thought was a book I read in college about requirements called 
"Nailing jelly to a tree" - but personally I find it easier to remember 
and associate with a product, once I know what it is, than many other 
more descriptive names, especially the litany of products based on acronyms.

Dan Madoni wrote:
> I know I've already said my piece about the name "Jelly", but if you'll
> indulge me again: the name is meaningless, even more so than most Apache
> project names, (and that's saying something). At least "Tomcat" might
> conjure images of something agile and street-savvy; "Betwixt" implies
> something that sits between something else (which hints at what it is); of
> course, names like "FileUpload" and "Logging" are precise and immediately
> communicate the purpose of the project...
> ...but "Jelly"? It might as well be called "Blah" or "Hmmm", (don't get
> ideas). :)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message