Mailing-List: contact ace-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ace-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Terminology
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
From: Marcel Offermans <marcel.offermans@luminis.nl>
In-Reply-To: 
 <915289643-1258020928-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1836787591-@bda017.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:48:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <186091D5-58C6-4E31-9F6C-DF7FD5AA8896@luminis.nl>
References: 
 <915289643-1258020928-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1836787591-@bda017.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>
To: ace-dev@incubator.apache.org

Hi all,

+1 from me too. I would very much like to debate these terms, to see =20
if we can improve on them. Then once we agree on better ones, let's =20
refactor the codebase accordingly.

On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:15 , Jean-Baptiste Onofr=E9 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 =20=

> time user.

Apart from confusing some users, I also discovered that not everybody =20=

uses the same terms. However, I am sure we can reach some kind of =20
consensus on this list!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tonit.com@googlemail.com [mailto:tonit.com@googlemail.com] On =20=

> 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 =20
> on them)
> I had trouble with getting used to it but now it works. Still, to me =20=

> 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 =20
concerned we drop the term gateway everywhere. Our original reason for =20=

using it was the fact that the OSGi specification used it as the =20
official term (as in, it was the "G" in OSGi).

> [License]
> This is more about assigning bundle groups to gateways. Routhly =20
> speaking:
> license is one possible implementation to archive this, but having =20
> 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 =20
> trimming the
> core down and make the license concept an optional implementation =20
> "plugin".

I would like to defer discussions about changing core concepts to a =20
different thread. There are a couple of good reasons to use the =20
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 =20=

could debate that.

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Carsten Ziegeler =
<cziegeler@apache.org=20
> >wrote:
>
>> afaik the current terminology for ACE uses bundles, groups and =20
>> 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 =20=

have been "components". Components can be anything: bundles, =20
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, =20=

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 =20
>> changes?

Well, pretty much everywhere throughout the code, if we want to not =20
only superficially change these terms. Time line wise, let's first =20
agree on better terminology, and then change both code and =20
documentation, perhaps starting with a page explaining all the terms.

Greetings, Marcel