On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the benefits do we intend to provide for users with the > "components"-based aggregation? > Simplicity and ease of use. Take the scdl jar aggregate as an example, a user wants to process some scdl - things like reading and writing composites, perhaps validating or manipulating the model programatically - they don't know what binding or component types may be used they just want it to work with what ever is in the scdl. Right now to do that they need to explicitly use a vast list of tuscany modules and that list of modules is continually changing over time so every time they pick up a new build their code breaks. With the tuscany-scdl aggregate they can just use that single jar and that will continue to work over new builds and releases. > IMHO, we can use the "feature" idea to address the requirements of b) in > Mike's original e-mail without the restriction of non-overlapping > and side-effort of producing new jars. Meanwhile, the alignment of > feature/distribution gives us the flexibility to balance the granularities. > A distribution is also a feature and we can also easily group features into > a distribution. > > The "feature" idea of having a Maven pom module instead of an aggregate jar helps users when building with Maven but it doesn't help non Maven users and it doesn't help with aspects out side of the Maven build process such as packaging and distribution, users are still going to have to deal with the vast and changing list of individual Tuscany module jars. ...ant
