Here's something that I had in mind: Re-organized samples and itests: I believe current samples and itests are pretty good in their contents but not well organized, many a times I keep searching for a right sample/itest for a functionality.
I would suggest a one-to-one mapping of samples and itests with the each of implementation types, binding types and contribution types we support, which would demostrates the complete functionality offered by each of these implementation types, binding types and contribution types. Probably, we might need to have sub-project under each of these samples to demonstrate more relevant features to their parent, by not duplicating things as much as possible. Other advantages of this re-organization would be: 1. Easy to pick up samples and itests, when we build a smaller distribution for the users. 2. Easy for developers to verify their fixes by checking with smaller chunck of samples and itests. Any suggestions/comments on the same are welcome. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Dan Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ant elder wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> OASIS is clearly on the list. Ant's survey should help. But what else? >>> >>> IMO this is not really about a detailed shopping list of code changes but >>> more about themes (as per the thread title), i.e. more the what than the >>> how. >>> >>> >> Here's some things i think it could be good to look at: >> >> More coherent documentation. >> Improved JEE/Webapp support. >> Policy and QoS >> Distribution >> >> > I agree with the these technical suggestions. I think the OSGI enablement > will be a big draw (even if it comes before 2.0). We are going to need some > good samples and demos that show this off. > > I'd also like to see the documentation improved. I spend a lot of time > searching the samples for specific techniques and patterns. I think the > samples have many golden nuggets hidden in there. The documentation > would be a nice way to expose the riches and put them to use. > > In a similar vein, I think consumability would be a good theme. We could > spend a few more cycles honing the user experience. I'd like to see more > top notch demos and presentations of the Tuscany capabilities. Perhaps this > is not our development realm, but promoting graphical tools and syntax > assist tools to work with Tuscany. Personally I get frustrated when I read > or make Tuscany demos or presentations and the simple composites must be > created with PaintShop or some non-tech tool. > > > -- > Thanks, Dan Becker > > -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
