Liu, Jervis wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: tooling and service model
James Mao wrote:
Hi Dan,
I would like to start a set of parallel tool modules. Say create a
directory called tools2 and get things working there. Once we're
ready we can work on switching the whole build to the new tools.
The tools2 will include all the functions in cxf tools?
And more :-)
and how long will it take?
Depends on how fast we can type :-)
and when we say switching you mean include porting all the
unit tests
and system tests to the tools2? and also make demos work properly.
So, your goal is to replace cxf tools with tools2?
Yes, yes, yes.
or let user choose which one they want to use?
No.
But i really have a question why we need to create another
tools when
the current tools works perfectly fine?
Because they don't work fine. I believe we had this
discussion before...
Please see the previous threads on tooling.
I do remember we had some discussions before regarding CXF tooling, but as far as I can recall, I do not think we are anywhere close to reach a conclusion that CXF tools need to be totally rewritten.
If you want to try to refactor the current tools in place, I
suppose we
could try that. But its a pretty drastic change, so I don't
really see a
step-wise process to do it. I think it would be better to
just write a
second set of tools, then when they're ready switch
everythign over and
delete the old tools.
Refactoring current tooling or writing a brand-new one are both ok as the
ultimate goal is to have a better tooling. But it would appear to be too early
to tore down everything we already have and invent the wheel from scratch
before we can answer questions below:
1. Identify exact problems in our current tooling, and what problems can be resolved through refactoring and what problems can not be resolved elegantly as it is due to core architecture.
I just went through our mailing list and found following tooling relevant
discussions, do let me know if I am missing anything.
a. CXF tools need to support WSDL2.0
b. CXF tools need to support SOAP1.2
c. We need to reuse Service Model in tools, this will bring us WSDL2.0 and SOPA1.2. There were some discussions around how to do this. One proposed approach is moving Service Model as a top level module, one is using Service Model as a plug-in. To me, they are implementation details and we shall be able to figure out which way is more appropriate when we are doing this work.
d. Support multiple databindings and multiple front-end profiles generations. With the code merged from XFire code base, the current CXF tools should have this capability in place already.
e. Reduce code duplication
Based on this observation, I feel a refactoring is a more practical approach, doing (a)(b)(c) should be a one week work. At the same time, I have to say some interfaces in our current tools are a bit confusing, for example, the ToolsContainer interface. This makes new developers hard to following the tooling architecture in order to do their contributions. I suggest we do another refactoring on this after getting service Model done. But overall, I do not see any critical problems that can not resolved through refactorings based on the information I have right now.
2. If we are to write a new tool from scratch, what are the feature list we have in mind, and how long do we expect to reach this feature list.
This is not what I'm proposing at all. I too feel this would be silly.
Here is what I'm proposing:
1. Rewrite the generation part of the tooling to use the Service
model instead of the wsdl. This would involve using the
ServiceFactory to build a ServiceModel and then writing out class
files from there.
2. Have tools depend on the core for the service model and put each
frontend's generation plugins in the frontend themselves. Moving
the service model to a separate module or common doesn't make any
sense whatsoever because we still need to depend on the
ServiceFactorys which are in the frontend, so there will be a
dependency on core.
3. Add SOAP 1.2 support to the SoapBindingFactory
4. Add WSDL 2 support to the core (WSDL2ServiceBuilder, etc)
5. Do this refactoring in a tools2 module. While I don't anticipate
that this is a lot of work, this will help us get around the
circular dependency issues and allow us to temporarily break a few
things.
6. Extra credit: use the CodeModel from Sun instead of our own.
Having our own creates unnecessary work and it is also too tied to
JAX-WS to be useful outside of it. If you look at JAXB, a whole
host of plugins have arose partly because they use this code model
that anyone can plug into. As its really not a lot of work to use
it instead of our, I think we should.
I think we can do this relatively easily and its not as big a deal as
people are making it out to be. The Celtix tooling is good, and I don't
want to rewrite it all, I merely want to evolve it.
Cheers,
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
