On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ant elder wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> >> >> By "1 bundle per module" do you mean any sort bundled jar combining >> multiple >> of our tuscany/java/sca/module jars is not worth pursuing? >> >> ...ant >> >> > I think that the right design is one bundle per maven module. I don't think > that aggregating multiple modules into a single bundle makes much sense, or > they should be aggregated in a single Maven module in the first place. > > I'm not sure i agree with that, individual small maven modules are for making things easier for developers, aggregated jars are for making things easier for users. There is lots of prior discussion about the pros and cons of this eg just search for all the projects using the shade plugin and then their mailing lists when they did that. Though if we do go back to a runtime launcher approach then users don't need to care so much as the launcher will hide some of these internal details. ...ant
