geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:00:06 GMT
There will always be maven "modules", more so as we move to m2 which  
actually refers to sub-projects as modules.  No reason why we can't  
reuse that term to describe g-specifics.

Once we've finished the initial m2 conversion, the modules directory  
is likely to go away in favor of more descriptive and organized  
source tree.  m2 is much more flexible (and powerful) in this respect  
to allow modules to be organized into hierarchies.  The flat  
"modules/" was mostly an artifact of using maven1.

--jason


On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:

> What are we going call the current modules, each of which is in a  
> separate directory under "modules" directory in the source tree?
>
> -Vamsi
> On 4/25/06, John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to "module".
>
> John
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a  
> group of
> > GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> > like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally  
> refers
> > to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> > say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> > Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> > installations, or you have two totally separate product  
> configurations
> > available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> > have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> > "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> > Geronimo.
> >
> > It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo  
> installation
> > loads many modules, and each module includes many components  
> (GBeans).
> >
> > I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> > proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> > presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> > classloader holding many components" as a "module".
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron
> >
> >
>
>


Mime
View raw message