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".
--
Jason Voegele
Reisner's Rule of Conceptual Inertia:
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
_______________________________________________
tc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
