+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