geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Date Mon, 08 May 2006 22:39:00 GMT

On May 8, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> That's good :-)
>
> * * *
>
> I still think that we should avoid the silly jar naming that sun  
> dropped on the community wherever possible.
>
> Not suggesting that we need to change anything as it is now, but if  
> we do, when we do...

Not a fan of the aar, bar, car, dar, ear, ... war, var, zar naming  
convention either.

-David


> --jason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:47:05
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
>
> Our code does not look at the file extension to determine the file
> type.  Instead it checks for key files within the jar itself (e.g,
> META0INF/ejb-jar.xml, WEB-INF/web.xml)
>
> -dain
>
> On May 6, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I actually don't see any reason why not just leave them as .jar
>> files really.  The server needs to know how to treat .jar files
>> different anyways (libraries vs. ejb-jars).
>>
>> :-\
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file
>>> extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository
>>> during a
>>> build, and for plugin download files.
>>>
>>> It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository
>>> logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the
>>> directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory  
>>> are
>>> like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a
>>> ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names).
>>>
>>> Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the
>>> standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod"
>>> instead
>>> of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car"
>>>
>>> I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be
>>> done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>   Aaron
>>>
>>> On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <a_kulshre@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>    Looks like .mdl is already taken.
>>>> http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/
>>>>  +1 for ,mod
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Anita
>>>>
>>>> --- Sachin Patel <sppatel2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> - sachin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after
>>>>>> further thought, having an extension longer than three
>>>> characters
>>>>>> is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under
>>>> geronimo
>>>>>
>>>>>> \repository) on Windows during the builds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about .mod or .mdl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd be happy if we never ended up calling any file a .[a-zA-
>>>> Z]ar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that the ear/war/rar thing is lame to start with, the
>>>>>>> folks that continue to use the same lame extension naming
>>>> system
>>>>>>> (sar, har, dar, car) just perpetuate this silly system that Sun
>>>>>>> dropped on us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we need to use extensions to clarify what something is, then
>>>>>>> lets use something more sensible.  Like for a module, why
>>>> not just
>>>>>
>>>>>>> use .module?  If you want to still say its a jar,
>>>>>>> then .module.jar, but please lets not make it a .mar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 5, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is to change it (although I don't
>>>>>>>> remember a formal vote although I do remember the discussion).
>>>>>>>> For my part it sounds like we're changing the configId to
>>>>>>>> moduleId to decrease confusion.  It seems odd that the modules
>>>>>>>> are called CARs (Configuration Archives) or some such
>>>> thing.  I
>>>>>>>> think we're making the server more confusing because now
less
>>>>>>>> things actually line up from a naming perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It just doesn't feel like we're giving our users a lot of
>>>>> stability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As David said, Just my $0.02.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to see more input from people though.  I've
been
>>>>>>>> travelling so I must have missed the vote to put it in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I think now is the time to discuss if we want to commit
the
>>>>>>>>> change from configId to moduleId.  If we decide to commit
the
>>>>>>>>> patch, the timing of the actual commit will be determined
by
>>>>>>>>> Kevan to have the smallest impact on the TCK.  The patch
>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>> the following changes:
>>>>>>>>>   o Renamed root element from "configuration" to "module"
>>>>>>>>>   o Renamed environment element from "configId" to "moduleId"
>>>>>>>>>   o Renamed schema from "geronimo-config-1.1.xsd" to
>>>> "geronimo-
>>>>>>>>> module-1.1.xsd"
>>>>>>>>> Based on conversations over the past few days, I think
we all
>>>>>>>>> agree that "configuration" is a poor name choice, and
we
>>>> want to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change it.  I also think that we all agree that if we
are
>>>> going
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to make the change we should change the xml schemas before
>>>> 1.1
>>>>>>>>> ships to have minimal impact on users (we already have
schema
>>>>>>>>> changes going into 1.1).
>>>>>>>>> Should we commit?
>>>>>>>>> -dain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message