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 Wed, 18 May 2005 20:16:04 GMT
I just read through the FAQ's and found that "Jelly" does indeed have an
intended meaning. From

The name started out as 'Jele' as in Java ELEments but then I thought Jelly
was a nicer spelling :-). The basic idea behind Jelly that Java code is
bound on to XML elements. 

Also Jelly (in British or Jello in American) can be molded to fit any shape
required which kinda fits with Jelly's main aim to be a flexible Java and
XML based scripting engine that can do anything. 

There are many different specific frameworks that take an XML document, bind
it to some kind of bean or object and then evaluate it in some kind of
script or process, so Jelly was an attempt at a generic engine using ideas
from JSP, JSTL, Velocity, Cocoon and Ant."

I can actually go along with the explanation of Jelly being molded into any
shape, although that's a bit of a stretch of the word "Jelly", as people
don't really think of jelly as something you mold around something else.
That is, I'll put jelly on my toast, but it's not the first thing I think of
when I need something flexible and moldable like clay or Silly Putty. 

I should note at this point that I'm American, and the suggestion that
British "Jelly"--our "Jello"--being moldable makes much more sense, as it is
very common to mold Jello; but "jelly" and "Jello" have no implied
connection here.

If the original acronym (JELE) would have stuck, then the connection between
"jelly" (by American definition) and "something moldable" would have made
more sense, i.e. because you're not grasping at straws to use the word
"jelly" to make the comparison since the name JELE is pronounced like the
word "jelly".

Of course, the acronym would be problematic anyway since "Java Elements"
isn't really meaningful either.

Anyway, I'm the proverbial complainer with few good ideas to suggest as
alternatives. :)  I suppose if it were my invention, I would have named it
something like "Active XML", which conveys some meaning as to what it is and
preemptively wards off some of the naysayers, (i.e. it stops short of the
off-the-wall concept of "executable XML" and instead suggests that XML
documents can be interactive, which is an important distinction).

I'm aware of the fact that I'm beating this dead horse beyond recognition,
but I'm enjoying this conversation. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Libbrecht [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:52 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

Le 16 mai 05, à 19:11, Dan Madoni a écrit :
> ...but "Jelly"? It might as well be called "Blah" or "Hmmm", (don't 
> get any
> ideas). :)

re-interpreting differently... (really playing!):

glue along  XML pipelines

would be much understandable, or ?
Doesn't jelly make you think, at least, to Jell-O or some jam a dirty 
kid would put on pens it borrows ?
We probably need more explicit images for you!

More or less kidding... but marketing brainstorming needs this, or ?


PS: would honey or maple-syrup be more sticky ?
PPS: I agree that the jelly-fish-like logo could be more explicit

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

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