geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: SUMMARY OF: Change "configuration" to "module"
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:34:15 GMT
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