geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vamsavardhana Reddy" <c1vams...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:00:21 GMT
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