Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jrsisson@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=bdOuUK/hngc63ec+XNuDNvnW6AX7rXCk3kJAg5aeVjvYqTOd4RqPxP26rkUUSOREXun+iKMdzRkZ8Myk6WVu2Z+IZZW/DPHSO+7BypE4C4OLKkkjJDF8Dcaiy/UzD5zzlFF1yxmoVYUZ8tSDfsO4K5ugHsdLU/ttv9jb6bTrn+M=
Message-ID: <444DE41B.2080901@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:55:55 +1000
From: John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
References: <74e15baa0604211254u5c69f063l95bff7b3c8936cd3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0604211254u5c69f063l95bff7b3c8936cd3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+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
>
>