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:dev@geronimo.apache.org 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 >>> >>
