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, 19 Nov 2009 15:04:02 GMT
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:05 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 16:46 , Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>
>>>> - Features (for Groups)
>>>
>>> That would align them a bit better with for example Apache Felix
>>> Karaf, that defines features as being a set of bundles (plus
>>> configuration).
>>
>> Another related term is the "profile" that Java EE 6 introduces,  
>> which
>> can also be explained as a set of bundles that form the  
>> infrastructure
>> to build applications upon. Applications also depend on profiles.  
>> All in
>> all, I think "profile" sounds more heavyweight than "feature" or  
>> "group".
>>
> Hmm, ok, and do you think that "heavywight" is better or is it  
> worse? :)

:)

Seriously, I think "feature" or "group" are better names, I just  
wanted to be thorough.

> Now, I think profile in the general sense is a little bit different  
> than
> what we are talking about :) I think in this sense profile is more  
> used
> like a flavour, so while you have different profiles, you get the same
> think but differently assembled. So there is usually a connection
> between profiles - and this is intended.

Well, different profiles in the Java EE case definitely provide  
different services to applications too. As far as I can see profiles  
are in the end composed of "bundles".

> Whereas there is usually no overlap between features - although it is
> possible of course.

Ok. Well, probably, unless someone else thinks it's a good idea, we  
should not consider "profiles" as a better alternative for our "groups".

Greetings, Marcel


Mime
View raw message