Enterpriser Server Jar Naming - Fix

Larry O'Leary loleary at redhat.com
Thu Jul 18 22:09:01 UTC 2013


On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 15:14 -0400, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
> 
> Glad to see that my email started an avalanche of emails; naming stuff is always a controversial topic :D 
> 
> Here is the summary of the thread so far against the initial proposal:
> 
> 1) Change the server startup module name to rhq-server-startup
>   - three clear yes votes (Jay, John Sanda, Heiko)

+1 

> 
> 2) Leave the server jar module name as is rhq-enterprise-server
>   - two clear yes votes (Jay and John Sanda)
>   - one clear no vote (Heiko) - the concern here is the length of the name
>   
> * This is only proposal I am still unclear if we reached consensus. On one hand keeping this artifact name avoids confusion and make clear the purpose of the module. But there were some concerns about the length of the name even if the old post fix "-ejb3" will be dropped. So I am unclear if there is another naming proposal and how to proceed.  Please refer to my initial email for my arguments to keep the current artifact name.

-1

I just don't like the word enterprise in anything. Many of the customers
I have worked with in the past would actually use this as criteria to
NOT select a product. The idea is that if you see enterprise in the
name, it means that you get inferior quality but its okay because the
"enterprise" is supposed to make you feel like its the best. Granted,
that isn't a great argument.

However, the name length is a very big issue. At the moment, users are
forced to break their business rules as they pertain to installation and
server placement within their file system. Simply putting RHQ in C:
\Program Files (x86)\jboss\rhq\ results in a failure for RHQ 4.5 (can't
speak for 4.8).

Dropping "enterprise" from the name might get one closer. Or how about
not exploding archive files? Why is this done anyway? Shouldn't the
rhq-server.jar be a JAR? Why is it exploded? 

> 
> 3) Use the artifact names unchanged as the deployment names in the ear, dev container, and any other place.
>   - two clear yes votes (Jay and John Sanda)

-1 

I suppose I don't have a strong preference here but it is annoying to
see rhq/*rhq*/*rhq*/*rhq*. I KNOW ALREADY! :)  Just because Maven
identifies the file using the artifact name and the version doesn't mean
the distribution should. The same can be said for version numbers
(actually those are even worse from the RHQ management/provisioning
perspective).



-- 
Larry O'Leary
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112645929986009801513



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list