On May 5, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'll defer to the body of committers as to how important this is
and if it should go into for 1.1. Personally I don't think it
really matters what the name is. ModuleId has its own set of
baggage and so will everything else. I'm more concerned about
another disruptive change to the users which will eventually
require them to change their plans. Even if we decide to provide a
conversion utility to bridge the gap for now we'll eventually
deprecate it and force them to change.
My personal opinion is -0 and weould prefer to leave it alone.
We've already had a vote to change it, so the question is when. If
Dain is willing to back out the change immediately if it doesn't look
good in the tck, then I'm fine with it now.
My $0.02
-David
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I think now is the time to discuss if we want to commit the change
from configId to moduleId. If we decide to commit the patch, the
timing of the actual commit will be determined by Kevan to have
the smallest impact on the TCK. The patch makes the following
changes:
o Renamed root element from "configuration" to "module"
o Renamed environment element from "configId" to "moduleId"
o Renamed schema from "geronimo-config-1.1.xsd" to "geronimo-
module-1.1.xsd"
Based on conversations over the past few days, I think we all
agree that "configuration" is a poor name choice, and we want to
change it. I also think that we all agree that if we are going to
make the change we should change the xml schemas before 1.1 ships
to have minimal impact on users (we already have schema changes
going into 1.1).
Should we commit?
-dain
