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 jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=uVMZZ1KJJWTq3n6xPqT7x1bOt6OC3CGN0Blnx1/Dg/nXm9WMD4bhvgxcn1mMNk/5EeFWrA82UKhmwkcmnJgEzrtPgs4tfiMc/mlHRg+m5N3MArXTJoBRQPCZAOHtRqB9TgVVff6TCQ//Yu1ewFbc80CsXdZOE/DqWEnrA0C9UVY=
Message-ID: <937046e80605051702n46a60221x91ee75ef30f524ce@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 17:02:03 -0700
From: "Jason Dillon" <jason@planet57.com>
Sender: jason.dillon@gmail.com
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
In-Reply-To: <48BA3125-E052-4A09-A311-1AA0F1D6A2A9@visi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <C565B385-FB1A-49DA-8DA1-105423397677@iq80.com>
	 <445BBBAC.9060004@hogstrom.org>
	 <48BA3125-E052-4A09-A311-1AA0F1D6A2A9@visi.com>

I would say commit it, and if there are any major problems with the
tck, then we back out, otherwise I would rather us fix it for the tck
to pass and keep the change to use moduleId in 1.1.

--jason


On 5/5/06, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > I'll defer to the body of committers as to how important this is
> > and if it should go into for 1.1. Personally I don't think it
> > really matters what the name is.  ModuleId has its own set of
> > baggage and so will everything else.  I'm more concerned about
> > another disruptive change to the users which will eventually
> > require them to change their plans.  Even if we decide to provide a
> > conversion utility to bridge the gap for now we'll eventually
> > deprecate it and force them to change.
> >
> > My personal opinion is -0 and weould prefer to leave it alone.
> >
>
> We've already had a vote to change it, so the question is when.  If
> Dain is willing to back out the change immediately if it doesn't look
> good in the tck, then I'm fine with it now.
>
> My $0.02
>
> -David
>
>
> > 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
> >
>
>