I just read through the FAQ's and found that "Jelly" does indeed have an intended meaning. From http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jelly/faq.html#why-called-jelly:
<quote> 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." </quote> 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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!): jelly 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 ? paul 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
