I'd be happy if we never ended up calling any file a .[a-zA-Z]ar. I
think that the ear/war/rar thing is lame to start with, the folks
that continue to use the same lame extension naming system (sar, har,
dar, car) just perpetuate this silly system that Sun dropped on us.
If we need to use extensions to clarify what something is, then lets
use something more sensible. Like for a module, why not just
use .module? If you want to still say its a jar, then .module.jar,
but please lets not make it a .mar.
--jason
On May 5, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Sounds like the consensus is to change it (although I don't
remember a formal vote although I do remember the discussion). For
my part it sounds like we're changing the configId to moduleId to
decrease confusion. It seems odd that the modules are called CARs
(Configuration Archives) or some such thing. I think we're making
the server more confusing because now less things actually line up
from a naming perspective.
It just doesn't feel like we're giving our users a lot of stability.
As David said, Just my $0.02.
I would like to see more input from people though. I've been
travelling so I must have missed the vote to put it in.
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
