I quite like "integration bundle", +1 from me. On 17 Aug 2007, at 19:40, Jason Voegele wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2007 1:31, Eugene Kuleshov wrote: >> It is all started from the Geert's complain about use of >> "configuration" >> because we often that configuration trough the code. >> Personally I don't see any issue there, but for clarity we can use >> "integration" instead of "configuration", so "integration bundle". >> >> I guess "bundle" initially came from our use of OSGi and it does have >> certain recognition in the OSGi community (a good thing), while >> the rest >> of the world would use "plugin" (or less often "module") for the same >> thing. > > I like "integration bundle", since integration seems to be the > primary raison > d'être for these things. Other possibilities sticking with the > integration > theme (in addition to the already proposed "integration module") > are "integration plugin" and "integration component". -- Geert Bevin Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org Music and words - http://gbevin.com _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
