I would say commit it, and if there are any major problems with the tck, then we back out, otherwise I would rather us fix it for the tck to pass and keep the change to use moduleId in 1.1.
--jason On 5/5/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 >
