On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:05 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Marcel Offermans wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 16:46 , Marcel Offermans wrote:
- Features (for Groups)
That would align them a bit better with for example Apache Felix
Karaf, that defines features as being a set of bundles (plus
configuration).
Another related term is the "profile" that Java EE 6 introduces,
which
can also be explained as a set of bundles that form the
infrastructure
to build applications upon. Applications also depend on profiles.
All in
all, I think "profile" sounds more heavyweight than "feature" or
"group".
Hmm, ok, and do you think that "heavywight" is better or is it
worse? :)
:)
Seriously, I think "feature" or "group" are better names, I just
wanted to be thorough.
Now, I think profile in the general sense is a little bit different
than
what we are talking about :) I think in this sense profile is more
used
like a flavour, so while you have different profiles, you get the same
think but differently assembled. So there is usually a connection
between profiles - and this is intended.
Well, different profiles in the Java EE case definitely provide
different services to applications too. As far as I can see profiles
are in the end composed of "bundles".
Whereas there is usually no overlap between features - although it is
possible of course.
Ok. Well, probably, unless someone else thinks it's a good idea, we
should not consider "profiles" as a better alternative for our "groups".
Greetings, Marcel
