While thats being done I'd like to do some more work on implementation.web and section 5.4 of the sca jee spec. I'd already started on this a while back but now i'd like to getting it going properly intergrated in to the build and our existing runtime support. Eventually i'd like webapps and implementation.web to support using the Tuscany distributed domain but it will take some smaller steps before it gets to there.
...ant On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > As a first step towards the integration, here are some items that I have > identified with Raymond and Sebastien's help (Raymond, Sebastien, please > correct me if I failed to capture the essence): > > 1. Model an EAR/WAR/EJB-JAR as an SCA contribution: By this I mean, given a > Java EE archive (non-SCA-enhanced for now), compute by introspecting the > archive, the SCA composite that represents the archive as an SCA > contribution as per SCA JEE Integration Spec [1]. In this step, all the > business interfaces implemented by session beans result in SCA services and > all the EJB references (used in session beans, MDBs and web components) > result in SCA references. > > 2. Get binding.ejb work with services. Currently binding.ejb works only > with references. Once binding.ejb works with services, the references > computed in step 1 above can be wired to the services in the domain using > ejb binding. > > 3. Common Administration view. Once a JEE contribution is added to a > domain, it should be administrable like any other SCA contribution. The > fact that the contribution may actually be run as a Java EE application on a > Java EE server should be transparent to the administrator. > > These three items should enable the coverage of scenarios 2.1-2.3 in > section 2 of SCA JEE Spec [1]. There is no Geronimo specific stuff yet in > this. > > I have done a little bit of experimentation with EJB jars. Using > openejb-core and openejb-jee modules, it seems fairly simple to introspect > EJB3 jars (even though I already ran into some glitches with the interface > definitions). Will post to the list soon on my findings. > > ++Vamsi > > [1] > http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_JAVAEE_Integration_V100.pdf > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:37 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ok, from the initial email there were only two points labelled [Common to >> SCA]: >> >> * Manage the configuration (Contributions/Composites/Nodes) for a SCA >> domain [Common to SCA] >> * Resolve the wirings at SCA domain level for the top-level composites >> [Common to SCA] >> >> and all the other points are labelled [Specific to Geronimo]. I guess on >> the surface of it that all sounds fine to me as long as [Common to SCA] >> means its the APIs and code behind the APIs which are provided in a common >> way by Tuscany. For something like the GSoC project doing the Geronimo >> console management plugin that still needs to elements to be specific to >> Geronimo to be integrated as part of the Geronimo admin console doesn't it? >> >> ...ant >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It's good to add the use cases from SCA/JEE spec into this discussion. >>> But I want to make sure the purpose of this thread is to identify what's >>> common to SCA in all hosting environment and what's specific to Geronimo. >>> Base on the classification, we should implement the common features in a >>> generic way and specific things in a Geronimo way. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Raymond >>> >>> *From:* ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:56 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Tuscany integration with Geronimo: What's common to SCA >>> and what's sepcific to Geronimo?, was: Re: GSoC Project - Tuscany SCA >>> support in the Geronimo admin Console >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to extend the discussion a bit to help us better >>>>> understand what user experience we would like to bring to Geronimo >>>>> developers/users with Tuscany/SCA. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that we use a usage scenario-driven approach to create a list >>>>> of tasks/features and mark them either it's common to SCA independent of >>>>> the >>>>> hosting environment or it's specific to Geronimo. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a few roles a Geronimo instance can play in the SCA domain: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Geronimo is a member of a SCA domain to deploy/run SCA applications >>>>> >>>>> * Connect to the SCA domain admin app to get the image of a resolved >>>>> composite application >>>>> * Be able to deploy the resolved composite application in the VM of >>>>> Geronimo, either as JEE application or standalone [Specific to Geronimo] >>>>> * Run the resolved composite application >>>>> * Provide the binding/implementation/policy extensions to realize SCA >>>>> binding/implementation/policy types.[[Specific to Geronimo] >>>>> * Hook with the other containers in Geronimo to provide various >>>>> bindings, such as HTTP connectors with Tomcat >>>>> * Hook with the QoSs such Transaction and Security provided by >>>>> Geronimo to implement the SCA policies >>>>> * Create/manage related resources for some bindings, such as JMS >>>>> connection factories and queues [Specific to Geronimo] >>>>> >>>>> 2) Geronimo hosts the SCA domain admin application >>>>> >>>>> * Manage the configuration (Contributions/Composites/Nodes) for a SCA >>>>> domain [Common to SCA] >>>>> * Resolve the wirings at SCA domain level for the top-level composites >>>>> [Common to SCA] >>>>> * Deploy the resolved composite image to a in-process or remote host [A >>>>> Geronimo or JSR88 Deployer may be specific to Geronimo] >>>>> >>>>> 3) Geronimo hosts (some) contributions for a SCA domain >>>>> * Expose them as URLs to the SCA domain admin application. In this >>>>> case, It functions as a repo for SCA contributions. [Specific to Geronimo] >>>>> >>>>> I think we should only try to implement a feature in a >>>>> geronimo-specific way only if it's specific to Geronimo. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Raymond >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Now that the 1.0 version of the SCA JEE spec [1] is out that defines >>>> several concrete use cases and scenarios we can use to define the tasks and >>>> features we need. For example, how about one goal be running in Geronimo >>>> the >>>> application.ear shown at line 1131 page 41 "Appendix A – use cases" of the >>>> SCA JEE spec. >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_JAVAEE_Integration_V100.pdf >>>> >>> >>> Any comments on this or does silence mean that example from the JEE spec >>> is an ok use case to be working towards for our first try at the new >>> Geronimo integration? >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> >
