Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
On May 8, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: That's good :-) * * * I still think that we should avoid the silly jar naming that sun dropped on the community wherever possible. Not suggesting that we need to change anything as it is now, but if we do, when we do... Not a fan of the aar, bar, car, dar, ear, ... war, var, zar naming convention either. -David --jason -Original Message- From: Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:47:05 To:[email protected] Subject: Re: Commit configId to moduleId? Our code does not look at the file extension to determine the file type. Instead it checks for key files within the jar itself (e.g, META0INF/ejb-jar.xml, WEB-INF/web.xml) -dain On May 6, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: I actually don't see any reason why not just leave them as .jar files really. The server needs to know how to treat .jar files different anyways (libraries vs. ejb-jars). :-\ --jason On May 6, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository during a build, and for plugin download files. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" instead of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. Thanks, Aaron On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 - sachin On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after further thought, having an extension longer than three characters is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo \repository) on Windows during the builds. How about .mod or .mdl. John Jason Dillon wrote: 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Commited. -dain On May 7, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: OK Dain. We're ready to go. Here's my understanding of where we are on this issue: There has been a discussion on the matter (there was no official vote -- nor did there need to be one). The consensus was to change configId to moduleId. I didn't participate in the original discussion. For the record, I'm neutral on this change. I think we're trading one over-loaded term (config) for another (module). Module may be marginally better, but not by much... Either way, we end up with terms that will require explanation. The only outstanding issue is the suffix name for the archive. I've heard the following proposals: 1) Leave it as .car 2) Change it to .mod or .mdl 3) Change it to .jar I believe that 1) is the suffix supported by your patch and is the group consensus (albeit not a visibly overwhelming consensus). --kevan
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
That's good :-) * * * I still think that we should avoid the silly jar naming that sun dropped on the community wherever possible. Not suggesting that we need to change anything as it is now, but if we do, when we do... --jason -Original Message- From: Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:47:05 To:[email protected] Subject: Re: Commit configId to moduleId? Our code does not look at the file extension to determine the file type. Instead it checks for key files within the jar itself (e.g, META0INF/ejb-jar.xml, WEB-INF/web.xml) -dain On May 6, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: > I actually don't see any reason why not just leave them as .jar > files really. The server needs to know how to treat .jar files > different anyways (libraries vs. ejb-jars). > > :-\ > > --jason > > > On May 6, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > >> Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file >> extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository >> during a >> build, and for plugin download files. >> >> It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository >> logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the >> directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are >> like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a >> ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). >> >> Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the >> standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" >> instead >> of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" >> >> I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be >> done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. >> >> Thanks, >> Aaron >> >> On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Looks like .mdl is already taken. >>> http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ >>> +1 for ,mod >>> >>> Thanks >>> Anita >>> >>> --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > - sachin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: >>> > >>> > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after >>> > > further thought, having an extension longer than three >>> characters >>> > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under >>> geronimo >>> > >>> > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. >>> > > >>> > > How about .mod or .mdl. >>> > > >>> > > John >>> > > >>> > > Jason Dillon wrote: >>> > >> 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: Commit configId to moduleId?
On May 5, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: It just doesn't feel like we're giving our users a lot of stability. Say what? We have already changed the schema in 1.1 and we have not released G 1.1 yet, so there are no user stability concerns created by adding another change. -dain
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Our code does not look at the file extension to determine the file type. Instead it checks for key files within the jar itself (e.g, META0INF/ejb-jar.xml, WEB-INF/web.xml) -dain On May 6, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: I actually don't see any reason why not just leave them as .jar files really. The server needs to know how to treat .jar files different anyways (libraries vs. ejb-jars). :-\ --jason On May 6, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository during a build, and for plugin download files. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" instead of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. Thanks, Aaron On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > - sachin > > > > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after > > further thought, having an extension longer than three characters > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo > > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. > > > > How about .mod or .mdl. > > > > John > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
On May 5, 2006, at 3:05 PM, 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? OK Dain. We're ready to go. Here's my understanding of where we are on this issue: There has been a discussion on the matter (there was no official vote -- nor did there need to be one). The consensus was to change configId to moduleId. I didn't participate in the original discussion. For the record, I'm neutral on this change. I think we're trading one over-loaded term (config) for another (module). Module may be marginally better, but not by much... Either way, we end up with terms that will require explanation. The only outstanding issue is the suffix name for the archive. I've heard the following proposals: 1) Leave it as .car 2) Change it to .mod or .mdl 3) Change it to .jar I believe that 1) is the suffix supported by your patch and is the group consensus (albeit not a visibly overwhelming consensus). --kevan
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Another reason I don't like '.car' is that to some people it has a meaning in Java Web Start (client archive). I remember when I first saw .car files, I googled to see what they were but after following it up on IRC found out it wasn't anything to do with Web Start. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22client+archives%22+%2Bjnlp+%2Bcar+&btnG=Search&meta= I just wonder how many people will ask us what the 'car' part of the module names that are displayed during startup mean etc. John Aaron Mulder wrote: Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository during a build, and for plugin download files. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" instead of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. Thanks, Aaron On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > - sachin > > > > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after > > further thought, having an extension longer than three characters > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo > > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. > > > > How about .mod or .mdl. > > > > John > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
On May 5, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Dave, thanks for the reminder of the vote. I was thinking in terms of Dain's first note in this chain. I believe I voted +1 in that original moduleId thread. After considering this further I'm revising my opinion as I don't think we're solving the problem; just creating new ones. I think I'd be more in favor of making the terminology consistent throughout the server but that is more than can be contained in 1.1. To be honest, I'm not sure what you'd call it. We had an idea proposed followed by a bunch of +1s, but of course "[vote]" wasn't in the title. So your guess is as good as mine :) Regardless, let's hear from Kevan. And anyone who wants to speak their mind on the subject. Thanks for keeping me honest :) Keeping an honest man honest is a one man job. -David
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
I actually don't see any reason why not just leave them as .jar files really. The server needs to know how to treat .jar files different anyways (libraries vs. ejb-jars). :-\ --jason On May 6, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository during a build, and for plugin download files. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" instead of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. Thanks, Aaron On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > - sachin > > > > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after > > further thought, having an extension longer than three characters > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo > > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. > > > > How about .mod or .mdl. > > > > John > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Just to clarify, the actual file extension in the form of a file extension is only use in a developer's local Maven repository during a build, and for plugin download files. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but I believe the repository logic is that iy uses the "type" specified in the module ID in the directory name in the repository, so the entries in the repostory are like group/artifact/version/artifact-version.type/ so there is a ".car/" in the directory name (but not in any file names). Bottom line, if we want to change anything, we need to change the standard "type", so for example "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/mod" instead of "geronimo/j2ee-server/1.1/car" I'm OK with that, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be done. I guess I'm kind of a +/- 0. Thanks, Aaron On 5/6/06, anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > - sachin > > > > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after > > further thought, having an extension longer than three characters > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo > > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. > > > > How about .mod or .mdl. > > > > John > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Looks like .mdl is already taken. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/formats/mdl/ +1 for ,mod Thanks Anita --- Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > - sachin > > > > On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after > > further thought, having an extension longer than three characters > > is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo > > > \repository) on Windows during the builds. > > > > How about .mod or .mdl. > > > > John > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
+1 - sachin On May 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, John Sisson wrote: I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after further thought, having an extension longer than three characters is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo \repository) on Windows during the builds. How about .mod or .mdl. John Jason Dillon wrote: 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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
I also was just about to suggest a .module extension, but after further thought, having an extension longer than three characters is likely to reintroduce the filename length issues (under geronimo\repository) on Windows during the builds. How about .mod or .mdl. John Jason Dillon wrote: 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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
Dave, thanks for the reminder of the vote. I was thinking in terms of Dain's first note in this chain. I believe I voted +1 in that original moduleId thread. After considering this further I'm revising my opinion as I don't think we're solving the problem; just creating new ones. I think I'd be more in favor of making the terminology consistent throughout the server but that is more than can be contained in 1.1. Regardless, let's hear from Kevan. Thanks for keeping me honest :) Matt David Blevins 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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
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 >
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
I agree we should change it to have minimal impact on users and ISVs in future geronimo releases. Hopefully future releases won't require major changes to the schema like in this release. Leaving it as is may cause confusion when docs, articles etc. for different versions uses different terminology. The earlier we change it, the less users will be impacted (as we will have more users using later releases). John 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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
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
Re: Commit configId to moduleId?
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. 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
