You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> on 2006/04/21 21:54:17 UTC

Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

All,

How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
"two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
Geronimo.

It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).

I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
classloader holding many components" as a "module".

What do you think?

Thanks,
    Aaron

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.

+1

- sachin



On Apr 21, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> All,
>
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
>
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.

+1

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> All,
> 
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
> 
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
> 
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
> 
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.

+1, module is better.

--jason


On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> All,
>
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
>
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.

+1 
    It is easier to grasp - 
   J2EE module : deployable unit with deployment descriptor
  geronimo module : serialized deployable unit created with a plan

--- Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:

> +1 and I think I had a hand in calling them configurations
> 
> I have found people very very confused (blank stares) when I start  
> talking about configurations.
> 
> One issue with this change is it should be reflected in the XML, and 
> 
> console.  This would mean renaming configId in the xml to moduleId,  
> which should be a minor change.


    We will also have to do 'mar' instead of car.

Thnaks
Anita
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:03 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> 
> > Anything is better than configuration.  I've never liked that term.
> >
> > Module is fine.  Nice term from the apache httpd lexicon.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group
> of
> >> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It
> seems
> >> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally  
> >> refers
> >> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if
> you
> >> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two
> different
> >> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> >> installations, or you have two totally separate product  
> >> configurations
> >> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying
> you
> >> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's
> what
> >> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> >> Geronimo.
> >>
> >> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo
> installation
> >> loads many modules, and each module includes many components  
> >> (GBeans).
> >>
> >> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but
> I'm
> >> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> >> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> >> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>     Aaron
> >>
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.

+1 and I think I had a hand in calling them configurations

I have found people very very confused (blank stares) when I start  
talking about configurations.

One issue with this change is it should be reflected in the XML, and  
console.  This would mean renaming configId in the xml to moduleId,  
which should be a minor change.

-dain

On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:03 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Anything is better than configuration.  I've never liked that term.
>
> Module is fine.  Nice term from the apache httpd lexicon.
>
> -David
>
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
>> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
>> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally  
>> refers
>> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
>> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
>> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
>> installations, or you have two totally separate product  
>> configurations
>> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
>> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
>> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
>> Geronimo.
>>
>> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
>> loads many modules, and each module includes many components  
>> (GBeans).
>>
>> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
>> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
>> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
>> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Aaron
>>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.

Anything is better than configuration.  I've never liked that term.

Module is fine.  Nice term from the apache httpd lexicon.

-David

On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> All,
>
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
>
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.

On 4/21/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> All,
>
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
>
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>
> What do you think?

Yay! +1

Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.

There will always be maven "modules", more so as we move to m2 which  
actually refers to sub-projects as modules.  No reason why we can't  
reuse that term to describe g-specifics.

Once we've finished the initial m2 conversion, the modules directory  
is likely to go away in favor of more descriptive and organized  
source tree.  m2 is much more flexible (and powerful) in this respect  
to allow modules to be organized into hierarchies.  The flat  
"modules/" was mostly an artifact of using maven1.

--jason


On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:

> What are we going call the current modules, each of which is in a  
> separate directory under "modules" directory in the source tree?
>
> -Vamsi
> On 4/25/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to "module".
>
> John
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a  
> group of
> > GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> > like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally  
> refers
> > to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> > say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> > Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> > installations, or you have two totally separate product  
> configurations
> > available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> > have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> > "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> > Geronimo.
> >
> > It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo  
> installation
> > loads many modules, and each module includes many components  
> (GBeans).
> >
> > I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> > proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> > presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> > classloader holding many components" as a "module".
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.

What are we going call the current modules, each of which is in a separate
directory under "modules" directory in the source tree?

-Vamsi
On 4/25/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to "module".
>
> John
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> > GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> > like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> > to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> > say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> > Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> > installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> > available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> > have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> > "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> > Geronimo.
> >
> > It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> > loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
> >
> > I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> > proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> > presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> > classloader holding many components" as a "module".
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.

Guys,

I agree that this needs to be addressed.  I'd like to appeal to everyone and ask that we focus on 
getting 1.1 completed.  There are 84 outstanding JIRAs in 1.1 (I'm weeding tht down now) and we 
still have a ways to go on CTS.  Before we change another thing in the server we need to have a 
server to change.  At this point we are focusing on changing additional items in the server and 
ignorning the issues in the current one.

I appreciate any help on getting 1.1 out and -1 on ALL changes that are not specifically fixing 
known (broken) issues.  This is a feature (enhancement).  Not a bug fix.

Matt

John Sisson wrote:
> +1 to "module".
> 
> John
> 
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
>> All,
>>
>> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
>> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
>> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
>> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
>> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
>> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
>> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
>> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
>> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
>> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
>> Geronimo.
>>
>> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
>> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>>
>> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
>> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
>> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
>> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Aaron
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: Verbiage: Change "configuration" to "module"?

Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.

+1 to "module".

John

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> All,
>
> How would you feel about referring to configurations (e.g. a group of
> GBeans with own ID and classloader) as a "module" instead?  It seems
> like "configuration" can be confusing, as it more traditionally refers
> to a larger scope like an entire installation.  For example, if you
> say you have two different WebLogic configurations or two different
> Apache (HTTP) configurations, you're saying either you have two
> installations, or you have two totally separate product configurations
> available for the same product installation.  You're not saying you
> have an app and a database pool within one runtime, but that's what
> "two different configurations" presently would mean in relation to
> Geronimo.
>
> It seems like it would be clearer to say that a Geronimo installation
> loads many modules, and each module includes many components (GBeans).
>
> I'm not proposing that we go changing class names and stuff, but I'm
> proposing that we make a concerted effort in our documentation and
> presentations to present the name of the "unit with an ID and
> classloader holding many components" as a "module".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>
>

Re: Triplesec JACC Provider

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.

Thanks for the ping!  I'm also kinda buried but would love to get the  
triplesec stuff working ASAP.  I'm subscribed to the directory list  
now so should see when it gets imported.

thanks
david jencks

On Oct 26, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> D. Jencks,
>
> Sorry for not contacting you sooner but I'm getting buried with  
> things to do lately.  Although I've cleared all the IP for the  
> Triplesec import I still have significant work remaining to  
> actually complete the import.
>
> I just wanted to give you some status on where I am in case you're  
> wondering what happened.  I'm still very interested in starting on  
> this JACC provider.  Perhaps things will clear up within the next  
> week or too.
>
> Regards,
> Alex

Triplesec JACC Provider

Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.

D. Jencks,

Sorry for not contacting you sooner but I'm getting buried with things 
to do lately.  Although I've cleared all the IP for the Triplesec import 
I still have significant work remaining to actually complete the import.

I just wanted to give you some status on where I am in case you're 
wondering what happened.  I'm still very interested in starting on this 
JACC provider.  Perhaps things will clear up within the next week or too.

Regards,
Alex

Re: where's JACC provider implementation?

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.

My apologies for the extremely late response, this appears to have  
been sent when my mail wasn't really working.  On the other hand in  
April JACC wasn't pluggable and it is now :-) (almost completely, I  
hope)

The default Geronimo JACC provider is in  
org.apache.geronimo.security.jacc in the  
GeronimoPolicyConfigurationFactory and PolicyConfigurationGeneric  
classes.  I suspect we should move these into a different package to  
make it clear they are the JACC provider rather than the  
infrastructure geronimo provides.  If you want to configure the JACC  
implementation with non-spec information from geronimo plans you will  
also need to write a builder similar to the  
o.a.g.security.deployment.GeronimoSecurityBuilderImpl that reads info  
from its own xml namespace.   If the non-spec information is intended  
to come from a different source (not geronimo plans) you won't need  
one of these builders.

I recently set up a skeleton example of how a JACC provider could be  
plugged in, http://www.nabble.com/TripleSec-Geronimo-integration- 
tf2444664.html#a6815690

It would be great to get another working JACC implementation  
installed, so if you have any questions how to proceed please ask!

thanks
david jencks

On Apr 22, 2006, at 3:44 PM, argyn wrote:

> i started looking into code in org.apache.geronimo.security.jacc  
> <http://geronimo.apache.org/api/org/apache/geronimo/security/jacc/ 
> package-summary.html> package. basically, i want to figure out how  
> to plug the custom JACC provider into Geronimo, so i need to look  
> at the existing ones. where's your default jacc provider?
>
> thanks,
> argyn
>