Re: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

[Eddie Bush]

Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:22:42 -0700
From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Terminology: modules versus sub-apps

One other point I neglected to mention, which may actually make the question
moot at this point:

We use $M to denote the current module in forward URLs. If we choose the
term sub-apps, we'd have to explain why we use $M as the abbreviation...

This was done after Ted started committing docco changes that said
"module" and nobody complained ...

I'm OK with either, but somewhat prefer "modules".

Agreed. Plus (IMHO) sub-app implies a "super-app" (thinking OO here), so modules really is a lot more appropriate name for what they are - at least in 1.1.

--
Eddie Bush




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>