ant elder wrote:
For the past 2.x releases we've acknowledged that the samples haven't
been perfect but have done releases anyway, are you suggesting we
should stop doing that and get the samples more perfect before any
more releases? I'd like to do a release now while we continue to work
on the samples. I also think it would be great if you could actually
help write some samples in SVN along with all these emails about them.
I'm not saying that we should wait for perfection in the samples before
doing more releases. As I've said earlier in this discussion, I think
it's fine to do releases with a small number of samples that meet some
kind of minimum standard and add more samples in future releases.
This discussion is about what's expected of a sample before it gets
included in a release. It looks like we are converging on an agreed
checklist for that. I hope this will be useful for deciding which
of the samples are ready to be included in a release.
One other comment inline below...
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Simon Nash <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for reviewing the checklist. See comments inline below.
Simon
Florian Moga wrote:
The checklist is looking good until now. I think that if we want to
enforce a consistent feel over the samples we should agree on build tool,
dependencies and launcher before considering the checklist final.
I would say let's stick with Maven for now, Apache Ant adds complexity and
requires time to find an elegant way of writing a script which we don't
afford now.
I think we also need to show people how to build samples using the
binary distribution without needing to download additional modules.
This is the reason why we have previously provided ant scripts for
building the samples. I don't think it's necessary for every sample
to have an ant script, but at least some of them should have one.
As for how dependencies are declared, you've got much more experience with
Tuscany to weight the pros and cons for each approach but I think we should
use the one we consider best practice and present that to the user. For me
base+extensions seems to be the way to go as it looks more loosely coupled
and there's been the big effort of adding that in Beta1.
Regarding the launcher, I have already expressed my opinion a couple of
times but haven't seen any comments so I guess we're fine with the shell?
This is probably OK for developers but it isn't suitable for deploying
or embedding Tuscany. I think it's important that we include ant scripts
for running some of the samples so that people know how to run Tuscany in
a production or embedded environment.
I think the Shell is a great way for users to learn about using SCA
and things like contributions and composites, better IMHO than the Ant
scripts. It doesn't show how to embed Tuscany but that not its role
and we can have other samples that show that.
+1, the shell is good for people learning SCA, and ant scripts are good
for showing how to embed Tuscany. A mixture of both styles in the samples
is a good approach.
Simon
...ant
