geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:51:07 GMT

I agree that this needs to be addressed.  I'd like to appeal to everyone and ask that we focus
getting 1.1 completed.  There are 84 outstanding JIRAs in 1.1 (I'm weeding tht down now) and
still have a ways to go on CTS.  Before we change another thing in the server we need to have
server to change.  At this point we are focusing on changing additional items in the server
ignorning the issues in the current one.

I appreciate any help on getting 1.1 out and -1 on ALL changes that are not specifically fixing

known (broken) issues.  This is a feature (enhancement).  Not a bug fix.


John Sisson 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

View raw message