[jboss-dev-forums] [JBoss AS7 Development] - Re: Thoughts on filesystem action driven hot deployment

[Brian Stansberry]

Brian Stansberry [http://community.jboss.org/people/brian.stansberry] created the discussion

"Re: Thoughts on filesystem action driven hot deployment"

To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/593532#593532

--------------------------------------------------------------
> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> 
> >  Just for aesthetics, I think the informative markers should be called: deploying, deployed/failed, undeploying, undeployed.
> > 
> From earlier mail about why this was deliberatly not chosen:
> "We did not use .deploy, .deployed as markers since it could cause confusion in filebrowser that can cut off the ending."
> 
> Which actually means we should consider finding better word for undeployed/undeploying...

I knew I'd hear from you about that at some point!  ;) 

How many characters of uniqueness are needed? You'd need a minimum of 3 if we went with .undeploying and isundeployed, to distinguish .isdeployed and .isundeployed.

TBH to me this borders on a bikeshed color issue. So, the decision making process for these file names will be:

1) I will leave it as is, since it's an edge case.
2) If Max has an opinion, I will do what he says.
3) If Dimitris has an opinion and it conflicts with Max's opinion, I will do what Dimitris says.

Other opinions will be ignored, unless they are persuasive enough to convince either Max or Dimitris.  :)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/593532#593532]

Start a new discussion in JBoss AS7 Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&containerType=14&container=2225]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-dev-forums/attachments/20110316/5b3dab66/attachment.html