Thanks for your interest in this Ram, note that I have also started the following thread to collect high level feedback from Tuscany users that are currently using the SCA/Spring integration.
http://www.mail-archive.com/user%40tuscany.apache.org/msg00167.html On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > Out of my interest in taking the Tuscany Spring Implementation Extension to > the next level, just got a chance to go through the mailing lists and the > Spring Component Implementation Specification and have identified few gaps > and limitation to the current implementation as shown with more details > below. > > Specs Gap - Item 1: Location attribute does not support archive file or > directory as the target uri. > From specs: The location attribute of the <implementation.spring> element > specifies the target uri of an archive file or directory that contains the > Spring application context files. If the resource identified by the location > attribute is an archive file, then the file META-INF/MANIFEST.MF is read > from the archive. If the location URI identifies a directory, then > META-INF/MANIFEST.MF must exist underneath that directory. > > Specs Gap - Item 2: Spring Implicit Services are currently not supported. > Where as Implicit references seems to be working fine. > From specs: Each <service> element used with <implementation.spring> should > include the name of the Spring bean that is to be exposed as an SCA service > in its name attribute. So, for Spring, the name attribute of a service plays > two roles: it identifies a Spring bean, and it names the service for the > component. > > Limitation - Item 3: Spring Bean Scopes, only stateless beans are > supported. > > Tests Required - Item 4: Policy Enforcement - Transactions and Security > > Samples Required - Item 5: Currently we have simple-bigbank-spring sample. > We need a sample with complex scenarios with mutiple interacting beans. > > Spring Version - Item 6: Currently we support spring-framework version > 2.0.8, do we need a update to the latest level (i.e., version 2.5) ? > > All the above mentioned items are based on my understanding, appreciate your > comments and suggestions on these items, which would help me to take this > forward. Thanks in advance. > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Ramkumar Ramalingam -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
