Hi all,
+1 from me too. I would very much like to debate these terms, to see
if we can improve on them. Then once we agree on better ones, let's
refactor the codebase accordingly.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:15 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
+1 on my side.
It can helpful to match some AutoDeploy terminologies ;)
Feel free to give input as to how AutoDeploy calls these things!
From: Martijn van Berkum
Also +1 on updating the terminology, they are confusing for a first
time user.
Apart from confusing some users, I also discovered that not everybody
uses the same terms. However, I am sure we can reach some kind of
consensus on this list!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Toni Menzel
Sent: donderdag 12 november 2009 10:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Terminology
+1 for updating terminology.
I have exactly the same issue since i started working with ace.
Personally i had issues with understanding the real meaning of:
[Gateway]
They are basically the provisioning targets, management agent runs
on them)
I had trouble with getting used to it but now it works. Still, to me
this
term seems a bit outdates to me. (like a term from the 90s).
Gateway was the "old" term, we now use "target" so as far as I'm
concerned we drop the term gateway everywhere. Our original reason for
using it was the fact that the OSGi specification used it as the
official term (as in, it was the "G" in OSGi).
[License]
This is more about assigning bundle groups to gateways. Routhly
speaking:
license is one possible implementation to archive this, but having
license
as a core concept is really not necessary, and also confusing.
So, what i'm saying here is not just a renaming, its more about
trimming the
core down and make the license concept an optional implementation
"plugin".
I would like to defer discussions about changing core concepts to a
different thread. There are a couple of good reasons to use the
structure we have now, but I'll start a different thread about it.
On the other hand, bundles & groups are fairly straightforward ;)
Agreed. Some other systems talk about "features" instead of groups. We
could debate that.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]
>wrote:
afaik the current terminology for ACE uses bundles, groups and
license.
I know that this has historical background, but I somehow feel uneasy
with these :)
That we used "bundles" in the web UI is really a mistake, that should
have been "components". Components can be anything: bundles,
configuration files, or any other artifact/file type you define.
So what do you think of changing them, especially license might cause
problems.
License is perhaps the term that I am least satisfied with right now,
but so far I could not come up with a better one yet.
This is not a must.
Given that we might change this, where do we have to apply these
changes?
Well, pretty much everywhere throughout the code, if we want to not
only superficially change these terms. Time line wise, let's first
agree on better terminology, and then change both code and
documentation, perhaps starting with a page explaining all the terms.
Greetings, Marcel
