geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: Network Properties & Naming
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:57:01 GMT
I agree with Jeremy.   One other aspect to consider is that technology 
is constantly changing.  If we settle on terminology today that isn't 
confusing for either tomcat or jetty that doesn't mean that it won't 
cause confusion for container X in the future.    We will never be able 
to pick terms that are generic for all time, all containers, all 
components.  I think attempting to come up with some common terminology 
will also be confusing to the user and will make it difficult to explain 
concepts that are similar or very different between containers.     

If we do end up with some common mapping, then I think we need to pick 
the most obvious terminology for the user.  Most users will consider 
"host" to be the IP host name and so I think we should use that term in 
general and cover the appropriate mapping to tomcat or jetty in 
documentation.  The user will have to coordinate settings between many 
different elements and using common terms will make that much easier 
than avoiding those terms because they bring specific meaning to some 
particular component. 


Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>     I disagree -- I think it's important to have a common management 
>> interface (currently, for example, NetworkConnector), and having the 
>> same properties called something different in every networkable GBean 
>> totally defeats that.
> I agree a common management interface is desirable. Unfortunately the 
> containers we are integrating appear to have little in common. From 
> what I hear Jeff saying, apparently simple concepts like "host" differ.
> What this means is that we will need substantial extensions to the 
> "common" interface to deal with these container specific concepts; the 
> lowest common denominator is proving to be too low.
> This does mean more work for us: alternative deployment 
> infrastructure, alternative management APIs, multiple management 
> portlets, and so on. However, it provides a simple and more intuitive 
> interface for the user so should be done.
> -- 
> Jeremy

Joe Bohn

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot

View raw message