On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Nash wrote: > >> ant elder wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to discuss the following: "What distro Zips are we building >>>>> and >>>>> what do they contain?" >>>>> >>>>> I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide: >>>>> - smaller packages >>>>> - easier for people to find what they need >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking about the following binary distro zips: >>>>> >>>>> - tuscany-core.zip - The base that everybody needs. >>>>> core assembly model and runtime >>>>> Java APIs, Java components >>>>> >>>>> - tuscany-web.zip - For WS and Web developers >>>>> WS binding, Web 2.0 bindings, Scripting components, Widget components >>>>> >>>>> - tuscany-jee.zip - For JEE app integration >>>>> EJB, RMI and JMS bindings, Spring components >>>>> >>>>> - tuscany-process.zip - For process development >>>>> BPEL and XQuery components >>>>> >>>>> - tuscany-all.zip - all of the above >>>>> >>>>> Note that I'm not trying to tackle release cycles and the potential for >>>>> releasing the above zips independently in this discussion and I'm >>>>> >>>> assuming >>> >>>> that we release all of the above together. >>>>> >>>>> I'm also assuming that the relevant samples are included in each zip. >>>>> >>>>> This email was from 1/22/08, generated a lot of discussion for about 3 >>>> weeks, lots of opinions, no conclusion, no commits :) >>>> >>>> >>> No commits as we haven't found much consensus yet. >>> >>> I still think the same as what I had posted then, plus additional ideas: >>>> >>>> - Use OSGi exports/imports to export clean SPIs, hide internals, and >>>> >>> refine >>> >>>> the contents of the distros and their dependencies. >>>> >>>> Disclaimer - Please don't get me wrong I'm not saying that one distro == >>>> >>> one >>> >>>> OSGi bundle, as I've already said several times on the list that the >>>> big-OSGi-bundle approach didn't make sense to me :) I just think that >>>> declaring and enforcing clean dependencies using OSGi will help us >>>> refine >>>> the contents of each distro. >>>> >>>> The term "enforcing" seems to suggest that there might be an OSGi >> dependency for the Tuscany runtime. I don't know if this was >> intended. I think the right approach is to have a Tuscany+OSGi >> runtime (as we are building in itest\osgi-tuscany) which would >> actually do enforcement, and a non-OSGi Tuscany runtime in which >> the exports/imports are present in the jars but not enforced. >> > > Huh, Yes sure, we'd enforce OSGi rules when running in an OSGi > environment... > > >> What would be the granularity of these OSGi bundles? If the bundles >> are the current maven modules, I think we will find a number of >> classes that need to be exported even though these classes are not >> considered part of the SPI or API that the module provides. >> To resolve this I see the following options: >> a) Export more than we really believe is correct. This >> leaves us in the current unsatisfactory position of exposing >> unwanted implementation internals. >> b) Combine multiple maven modules with a close implementation >> affinity into a single OSGi bundle, and only expose true >> APIs or SPIs from these bundles. >> c) Refactor the code to remove dependencies on internals of other >> modules, and create new SPIs or APIs when this isn't possible. >> >> I believe a combination of b) and c) is the best approach. >> > > We've already rehashed this (and disagreed on this) in several other > threads, where I've already given my opinion: > - 1 bundle per module > - clean API/SPI imports/exports > > >> - Instead of a tuscany-manifest JAR or tuscany-all JAR, use an extension >>>> registry mechanism (what we have now in Tuscany or better a combination >>>> of >>>> what we have now and the Eclipse Equinox registry for example) to detect >>>> which pieces are installed and activate their capabilities. >>>> >>>> >>> Can you say a bit more about what an "extension registry mechanism" would >>> look like? >>> >>> What the tuscany-all/manifest jar are trying to do is to have users not >>> need >>> to know about the internal makeup of Tuscany. So they can simply use >>> tuscany-all and avoid needing to know about all the dozens of different >>> Tuscany modules and their dependencies, and that should keep working over >>> many Tuscany releases whereas as we keep adding/deleting/changing the >>> modules we keep breaking user builds for each Tuscany release if they >>> refer >>> to the individual modules. Maybe the granularity isn't quite right yet >>> and >>> we need something in between the all jar and all the individual modules. >>> >>> Is there much agreement that avoiding users needing to know about the >>> internal Tuscany modules is a Good Thing? >>> >>> Yes, I think this is important. Ideally the Tuscany core runtime >> would figure out which pieces are needed for the domain configuration >> and load these pieces automatically. >> >> > Good requirement, but I don't think that the current manifest + tuscany-all > JAR solution is a good one (for example it mixes APIs and internals in the > same JAR, doesn't work well with IDEs, works only for one big distro, > requires different settings in J2SE and webapps) > I'm not saying I disagree that the all jar isn't quite the right granularity but what are the specific problems for those things you mention? Eg what doesn't it do well in IDEs? I've made a few changes to things over the last months and last time i tried the all jar DOES work fine in webapps, and if we're using osgi exports its no problem to mix APIs and internals in one jar is it? ...ant
