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 david.blevins@visi.com
 designates 208.42.156.9 as permitted sender)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3)
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0604211254u5c69f063l95bff7b3c8936cd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <74e15baa0604211254u5c69f063l95bff7b3c8936cd3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <541503D7-A48A-4E3F-8408-23750364FD14@visi.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com>
Subject: Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:03:27 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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
>