I checked in a first cut of some of the model changes discussed in this
thread in our sandbox under
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/sebastien/java/sca
(this is an SVN copy of the whole sca tree, including the changes to the
model and the corresponding changes in the
02:53 PM
Please respond to
tuscany-dev
To
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic and Jeremy's
point
brings up an issue I think needs to be fleshed out.
Specifically,
what are the requirements
Jim Marino wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
I think this this is a really good approach and will give us a great
binding/extension story for Tuscany. Two comments on the statement
that the model may look a little different than what we
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
I think this this is a really good approach and will give us a great
binding/extension story for Tuscany. Two comments on the statement
that the model may
+1 too
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
I think this this is a really good approach and will give us a
great
binding/extension story for
On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
[snip]
Thanks Frank for answering these questions. I have a few more that
maybe you or others could offer opinions on.
On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
I don't know much about how the sca
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I think that this whole discussion thread is very useful as it helps
us identify requirements and areas of improvement for our SDO
databinding and codegen story. For example, Guillaume mentioned that
it would be great to have a Maven 1 SDO codegen plugin, as
I'm forwarding this due to problems with my GMail setup...
Jim
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 24, 2006 10:31:20 AM PST
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
I think there may be some issues uncovered
,
we'd still be sharpening our chisels and working on carving the
wheel :-)
Thanks,
Frank
Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
03/23/2006 02:53 PM
Please respond to
tuscany-dev
To
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
There has been a lot of discussion
Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/22/2006 09:41:46 PM:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
The logical model is actually pretty close to the model generated from
the XMLSchema. If you take the model generated from the schema and add
a
few derived /calculated relationships and
Michael Beisiegel wrote:
hi Jeremy,
has somebody captured the current version of the logical model in UML.
I don't think so - should be easy for someone with access to a reverse
engineering tool :-)
--
Jeremy
Hi Ant,
I'm having trouble figuring out where you are coming down on this -
maybe I'm just brain-dead this morning. You mention at the beginning
that you are starting to be persuaded by the SDO approach but then
you give the Axis example at the end which seems to say either keep
things
I stand by my statement that the EMF problem is short term pain for long
term gain :-) I think that in the long term using the SDO generator will
be the best and easiest way to do this. Yes I am biased, but I've seen it
before - avoiding reuse/dependencies works nicely at first, but as things
advocated by
both camps (Databinding vs. StAX).
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Frank Budinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
I stand by my statement that the EMF problem
Resending since this didn't go through...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 23, 2006 11:53:12 AM PST
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic and Jeremy's point
]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
I stand by my statement that the EMF problem is short term pain
for long
term gain :-) I think that in the long term using the SDO
generator will
be the best and easiest way
On 3/21/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
We have been working to remove the dependencies on EMF
Is a goal to have an EMF free SDO impl? One of the reasons I liked this STaX
based approach is it makes the Tuscany core look more lightweight, but
removing the EMF
My recollection - Frank let me know if this is incorrect - was that
the SDO impl would not necessarily be EMF-free but that it would
hide implementation details. For the Java runtime, the goal was to be
EMF-free from the perspective that the runtime would not contain
direct dependencies on
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Frank Budinsky wrote:
Now back to the issue of whether or not to use SDO for the SCDL model.
Personally, I think that the main issue Jeremy is bringing up is that the
way SDO is currently being used for a Java binding of the physical model,
which then needs to be
as
all the other things.
Frank.
Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
03/21/2006 02:44 PM
Please respond to
tuscany-dev
To
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jim Marino wrote
The answer to that will depend on how the data for this will be
represented in the XML and what binding technology you wish to use to
deserialize it.
With the StAX approach, it can be any deserialization approach that can
read a XMLStreamReader. That could be SDO (after Raymond's work),
although
On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The answer to that will depend on how the data for this will be
represented in the XML and what binding technology you wish to use to
deserialize it.
With the StAX approach, it can be any deserialization approach that
can
read a
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip/
My main question remains: Is anybody volunteering to take
responsibility for this code?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is: which code do we as a community
choose to take responsibility for?
Seriously, you, I or anyone else may for many reasons be
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Could you briefly enumerate what you see as the benefits to the StAX
framework over alternatives?
The final straw that prompted me to do this was the amount of
classloader wrangling we ended up doing in the Tomcat code a couple of
Before we jump the gun on this I'd like to see if more
people could give some
feedback on the pros and cons of this. I definitely
some advantages in that it
simplifies the code some and is based on technologies
that more developers are
more likely to be familiar with. I do think that
I have just tested that with svn head and I have the following exception:
org.apache.tuscany.core.context.DuplicateNameException:
org.apache.tuscany.core.loader.assembly.ComponentLoader
at
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have just tested that with svn head and I have the following exception:
org.apache.tuscany.core.context.DuplicateNameException:
org.apache.tuscany.core.loader.assembly.ComponentLoader
This was a problem due to skew with Jim's changes yesterday - should be
fixed now.
--
I have got the StAX stuff to the point where I can run all the itests in
the build and the tomcat/testing tests using the StAX framework. I think
this is an opportune time to open discussion on whether we should switch
over to this once and for all.
You can enable the framework by setting the
Does this mean the core will no longer require SDO and the depedency on EMF?
...ant
On 3/8/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I checked in a framework for a StAX-based configuration loader for the
SCA core. It is based on a set of element handlers that generate a model
object
29 matches
Mail list logo
