+1 and I think I had a hand in calling them configurations
I have found people very very confused (blank stares) when I start
talking about configurations.
One issue with this change is it should be reflected in the XML, and
console. This would mean renaming configId in the xml to moduleId,
which should be a minor change.
-dain
On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:03 PM, David Blevins wrote:
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
