On 21 June 2016 at 17:55, Thilina Manamgoda <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2. Or should i move processing code in CWL activity to another module and
> then use it in both cwl-activity and cwl-activity-ui ?

I discussed this in the GSOC call today with Thilina.

My take is that in Taverna 3 "style", the CWLActivity should only be
used by the taverna-engine during execution, and so
taverna-cwl-activity-ui should not be making lots of CWLActivity to
populate the Service Panel (most of them would not be added to a
workflow).

(In Taverna 2 the UI would manipulate the Activity directly, so it was
forced to have such a binding)

The Activity UI code obviously will need to share *some* code with the
Activity as they are doing similar stuff - for this we agreed to
rather put that in a shared "taverna-cwl-utilities" module that both
cwl-activity and cwl-activity-ui can depend on.  This is equivalent to
the taverna-wsdl-generic used by taverna-wsdl-activity.


See the merged:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-activities/tree/cwl-browse/taverna-cwl-utilities/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/cwl/utilities


This is where we could then add parsing of CWL ${expressions} or $imports.


Perhaps we should rename its "Utility" to "CWLUtil"  or just "CWL" ?


BTW - to avoid spaghetti compile dependencies the cwl-activity-ui
should move to taverna-workbench-common-activities git repository -
but for simplicity now this is on the "cwl-browse" branch of
taverna-common-activities ; let's do that move towards the end of
GSOC?

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

Reply via email to