As I'm distracted trying to get 1.5.1 I've lost track of what is being
moved and why. I'd suggest doing whatever you need to do to get your
workspace clean and we can take a step back before we do any more
aesthetic refactoring to try and get as much of it done in one pass as
we can.
If we are
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:01 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
While thats happening what about the xml modules, no one has replied
to the comments I made - is there really any need to keep them
separate when you
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
While thats happening what about the xml modules, no one has replied
to the comments I made - is there really any need to keep them
separate when you can't run without them now and even if you could
they only add a 40k
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Raymond Feng enjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
What causes the circular dependency? I understand the assembly will have
dependency on interface.
assembly used policy and interface and interface used policy.
It seems quite clean and tidy to me like it is now with all
12:31 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: [2.x] Refactor builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on a policy builder that attaches the policy sets to a
composite
using xpath
Ok from all this can we look at some of the runtime modules, eg core,
core-spi, databinding, core-databinding, can we do any tidy up there?
...ant
With this kind of refactoring I'd rather we plan what we are going to
do across the code base, agree it and then apply it. This incremental
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok from all this can we look at some of the runtime modules, eg core,
core-spi, databinding, core-databinding, can we do any tidy up there?
...ant
With this kind of refactoring I'd rather we plan what we are going
+1.
--
From: Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:50 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org; antel...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [2.x] Refactor builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
Ok from all this can we
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
that caused another circular
dependency in the interface module so i merged that as well as it
meets all the criteria that Raymond defined. However I don't want the
interface module to disrupt getting agreement on merging
] Refactor builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
that caused another circular
dependency in the interface module so i merged that as well as it
meets all the criteria that Raymond defined. However I don't want
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Raymond Feng enjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Have we reached a conclusion yet? I think other people are still chiming in
with opinions. It seems that you merged more modules than what we
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Following the criteria, I would be fine if we merge assembly, definitions,
policy into one module,
Done in r813673.
...ant
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Good question. This is in fact a good use case of the Tuscany and such
scenarios can help us organize the modules.
Assembly depends on policy as the assembly model references intents and
policySets from the policy model.
builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:32 AM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Following the criteria, I would be fine if we merge assembly,
definitions,
policy into one module
into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on a policy builder that attaches the policy sets to a
composite
using xpath expressions. To implement this capability, I'll have to write
the Composite object
@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: [2.x] Refactor builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Raymond Fengenjoyj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on a policy builder that attaches the policy sets to a
composite
using xpath expressions. To implement
--
From: Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:47 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: [2.x] Refactor builders into a new tuscany-assembly-builder
module
[[snip]]
Are there possible runtimes where policy might be not required (e.g
when running
Hi,
I'm working on a policy builder that attaches the policy sets to a composite
using xpath expressions. To implement this capability, I'll have to write
the Composite object into a DOM tree so that the xpath expression can be
evaluated. It introduces dependencies on the tuscany-contribution
18 matches
Mail list logo
