geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: SUMMARY OF: Change "configuration" to "module"
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:43:41 GMT
Will there be an impact on existing users who have their 
web/applications using configId?  If so will/can we accept both?  I 
would hate to break backwards compatibility on this.


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I think we can do it in a night.  All we need is a sed script -- the
> syntax isn't changing other than literally replacing all occurances of
> "configId" with "moduleId" in *.xml files.
> Thanks,
>      Aaron
> On 4/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> I'm for the change but as I ponder the ramifications to 1.1 I'm afraid the scope
of this
>> modification is too large.  The TCK needs to be updated, lots of hard references,
>> I vote that we change this in 1.2 and leave them as configId for now.  If we take
this on I'm
>> confident that we'll miss Java One.
>> -1 for 1.1
>> +1 for 1.2
>> Thoughts?
>> Matt
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> So everyone seems to be in favor.
>>> I'm 100% in favor of making this change in our documentation and
>>> presentations and so on.
>>> I'm 95% in favor of changing "configId" to "moduleId" in our plans --
>>> just need to find the time to do it and it'll be an extensive change
>>> to the current plans in Geronimo and the TCK.  Even if we silently
>>> upgrade plans using "configId" during deployment I think we want the
>>> plans distributed with the server to use the recommended syntax
>>> wherever possible.  Any volunteers?
>>> I'm not necessarily in favor of changing CAR to MAR.  That's used so
>>> infrequently (and saying "just apply this MAR to your server" sounds
>>> so dubious) that I think we can just say "it's a just a CAR; it
>>> doesn't stand for anything".  Or call them plugins instead.  :)
>>> And while it might be nice to change the names of some of the server
>>> guts dealing with configurations (ConfigurationInfo,
>>> ConfigurationData, etc.) I don't feel the urge to do that myself -- if
>>> someone else wants to take a swing at it, be my guest.
>>> Thanks,
>>>     Aaron
>>> On 4/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>> 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

View raw message