geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:25:35 GMT
+1 and I think I had a hand in calling them configurations

I have found people very very confused (blank stares) when I start  
talking about configurations.

One issue with this change is it should be reflected in the XML, and  
console.  This would mean renaming configId in the xml to moduleId,  
which should be a minor change.


On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:03 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Anything is better than configuration.  I've never liked that term.
> Module is fine.  Nice term from the apache httpd lexicon.
> -David
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, 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