Guys,
I agree that this needs to be addressed. I'd like to appeal to everyone and ask that we focus on
getting 1.1 completed. There are 84 outstanding JIRAs in 1.1 (I'm weeding tht down now) and we
still have a ways to go on CTS. Before we change another thing in the server we need to have a
server to change. At this point we are focusing on changing additional items in the server and
ignorning the issues in the current one.
I appreciate any help on getting 1.1 out and -1 on ALL changes that are not specifically fixing
known (broken) issues. This is a feature (enhancement). Not a bug fix.
Matt
John Sisson wrote:
+1 to "module".
John
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
