ace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl>
Subject Re: Terminology
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:48:07 GMT
Hi all,

+1 from me too. I would very much like to debate these terms, to see  
if we can improve on them. Then once we agree on better ones, let's  
refactor the codebase accordingly.

On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:15 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> +1 on my side.
> It can helpful to match some AutoDeploy terminologies ;)

Feel free to give input as to how AutoDeploy calls these things!

> From: Martijn van Berkum
>
> Also +1 on updating the terminology, they are confusing for a first  
> time user.

Apart from confusing some users, I also discovered that not everybody  
uses the same terms. However, I am sure we can reach some kind of  
consensus on this list!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tonit.com@googlemail.com [mailto:tonit.com@googlemail.com] On  
> Behalf Of Toni Menzel
> Sent: donderdag 12 november 2009 10:43
> To: ace-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Terminology
>
> +1 for updating terminology.
> I have exactly the same issue since i started working with ace.
>
> Personally i had issues with understanding the real meaning of:
>
> [Gateway]
> They are basically the provisioning targets, management agent runs  
> on them)
> I had trouble with getting used to it but now it works. Still, to me  
> this
> term seems a bit outdates to me. (like a term from the 90s).

Gateway was the "old" term, we now use "target" so as far as I'm  
concerned we drop the term gateway everywhere. Our original reason for  
using it was the fact that the OSGi specification used it as the  
official term (as in, it was the "G" in OSGi).

> [License]
> This is more about assigning bundle groups to gateways. Routhly  
> speaking:
> license is one possible implementation to archive this, but having  
> license
> as a core concept is really not necessary, and also confusing.
> So, what i'm saying here is not just a renaming, its more about  
> trimming the
> core down and make the license concept an optional implementation  
> "plugin".

I would like to defer discussions about changing core concepts to a  
different thread. There are a couple of good reasons to use the  
structure we have now, but I'll start a different thread about it.

> On the other hand, bundles & groups are fairly straightforward ;)

Agreed. Some other systems talk about "features" instead of groups. We  
could debate that.

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org 
> >wrote:
>
>> afaik the current terminology for ACE uses bundles, groups and  
>> license.
>> I know that this has historical background, but I somehow feel uneasy
>> with these :)

That we used "bundles" in the web UI is really a mistake, that should  
have been "components". Components can be anything: bundles,  
configuration files, or any other artifact/file type you define.

>> So what do you think of changing them, especially license might cause
>> problems.

License is perhaps the term that I am least satisfied with right now,  
but so far I could not come up with a better one yet.

>> This is not a must.
>>
>> Given that we might change this, where do we have to apply these  
>> changes?

Well, pretty much everywhere throughout the code, if we want to not  
only superficially change these terms. Time line wise, let's first  
agree on better terminology, and then change both code and  
documentation, perhaps starting with a page explaining all the terms.

Greetings, Marcel


Mime
View raw message