James has always been an acronym, albeit a clever/cheesy one depending on your mood. Java Apache Mail Enterprise Server. The question posed was whether to change it.
-- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7/27/06, R_henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO there seems to be a little confusion between a name and an acronym. A true acronym is formed from the first (or, exceptionally, first convenient) letter from a series of (usually) descriptive words. Thus, if James (JAMES?) is to be considered an acronym then we need a description formed from J A M E S in that sequence. Reversing the E and M to fit Enterprise Mail breaks it. If forced, one can imagine Java Application Messaging Enterprise Services for example. However that example is contrived beyond value IMO. JAva MEssaging Services, whilst not a true acronym, is another option. I think there is "brand value" in the existing name (James/JAMES) and that it should be retained. Name changes often arouse suspiscion and confusion. I recognise and support the suggestion to differentiate between JAMES (the project) and JAMES (the server). Finally, if someone can suggest a good (valid) acronym then by all means adopt it. If not, then simply consider James/JAMES to be a name in the same way as Forrest. Roy From: "Serge Knystautas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: JAMES acronym issue... > > What about saying that James is "The Apache Enterprise Mail SERVICES" > project and that our main product is "James Server", an "Enterprise Mail > Server" +0. I don't think we need to change the name, but it's not a bad alternative.
