geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject Re: SUMMARY OF: Change "configuration" to "module"
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:18:48 GMT


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 4/23/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@savoirtech.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Well, we've changed the syntax dramatically between 1.0 and 1.1 (e.g.
> the configId used to be a single XML attribute and now it's 4 separate
> elements, the parents and imports are handled differently, etc.).  Are
> you worried about users who have 1.0 plans, or users who have pre-1.1
> plans?  

Yep, I know a couple of companies that are using G in production and are 
concerned in particular about this.

> I'm sure we're planning to auto-convert 1.0 plans to the 1.1
> syntax whatever it ends up being.  Do you think we need to support the
> older 1.1 syntax if we adopt the newer 1.1 syntax?

Probably, and unfortunately yes.  However, if we are going to make a 
clean break, can we bridge like we did with the 
geronimo-jetty.xml/geronimo-web.xml?  i.e. accept the old with a stern 
warning?  We do have a few core early adopters that will be impacted.

> 
> OLD
> 
> <web-app configId="group/artifact/version/type"
> parentId="group/artifact/version/type">
> 
> CURRENT-PRE-1.1
> 
> <web-app>
>   <environment>
>     <configId>
>       <groupId>...</groupId>
>       <artifactId>...</artifactId>
>       <version>...</version>
>       <type>...</type>
>     </configId>
>     <dependency>
>       ...
>     </dependency>
>   </environment>
> 
> PROPOSED-PRE-1.1
> 
> <web-app>
>   <environment>
>     <moduleId>
>       <groupId>...</groupId>
>       <artifactId>...</artifactId>
>       <version>...</version>
>       <type>...</type>
>     </moduleId>
>     <dependency>
>       ...
>     </dependency>
>   </environment>
> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
>> 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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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,
etc.
>>>>
>>>> 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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>

Mime
View raw message