Comments inline.. --- Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So everyone seems to be in favor. > > I'm 100% in favor of making this change in our documentation and > presentations and so on. > > I'm 95% in favor of changing "configId" to "moduleId" in our plans -- > just need to find the time to do it and it'll be an extensive change > to the current plans in Geronimo and the TCK. Even if we silently > upgrade plans using "configId" during deployment I think we want the > plans distributed with the server to use the recommended syntax > wherever possible. Any volunteers? Count me in. I can do Geronimo. If you have a list of what all is affected (other than configs/**/plan.xml), I can start from there. > > I'm not necessarily in favor of changing CAR to MAR. That's used so > infrequently (and saying "just apply this MAR to your server" sounds > so dubious) I did not like the sound of 'MAR' either, just mentioned it to start the conversation ;-) Thanks Anita that I think we can just say "it's a just a CAR; it > doesn't stand for anything". Or call them plugins instead. :) > > And while it might be nice to change the names of some of the server > guts dealing with configurations (ConfigurationInfo, > ConfigurationData, etc.) I don't feel the urge to do that myself -- > if > someone else wants to take a swing at it, be my guest. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 4/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
