On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> SCADomain APIs were introduced in Tuscany before we come up the Node > APIs > >> which are more consistent with the Domain concepts in the SCA spec. Even > >> though we should now use the Node APIs, there are still quite a few > samples > >> and testcases using the SCADomain API as a legacy. To better align the > >> behaviors of two APIs before we can finally remove the SCADomain, I'm > >> starting the port the DefaultSCADomain implementation to use node2-impl. > The > >> idea is to delegate the SCADomain APIs to Node2Impl. > >> > >> I run into two issues here: > >> > >> 1) Node2Impl assumes the deployable composite has been fully resolved by > >> the SCA Domain. For example, the binding URIs and policies. In the > >> SCADomain, CompositeDocumentProcessor tries to transform the original > >> composite by applying the policySets first and then load it into the > >> Composite model using CompositeProcessor. > >> > >> I'll work around this issue in the Node2Impl (use > >> CompositeDocumentProcessor to load the composite file and open a JIRA to > fix > >> it later when we have a good story to resolve the policy applications in > the > >> SCA domain first). > >> > >> 2) SCADomain APIs can take more than one deployable composites which > Node > >> APIs expect only one deployable composite. > >> > >> We'll only honor the first composite from SCADomain.newInstance. For a > few > >> testcases using more than one composites, we should create a composite > that > >> includes other composites and pass it the SCADomain API. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Raymond > > > > Is there a good reason we need to do this? If not then i don't think we > > should. > > > > Backward compatibility is really important, this is an API we've been > using > > in all the samples and telling users to use since the 0.90 release so we > > need a _really_ good reason to break it as is being done in (2), and even > > for (1) i think its an unnecessary risk as there will be differences in > the > > impl which will likely break things for users in some scenarios. > > > > To be safe wouldn't it be better to just deprecate the SCADomain class > and > > change all our samples and tests to use the new Node2 APIs? If we don't > > think the Node2 APIs are as easy to use as the SCADomain we should fix > that. > > I know thats a little more work but i'll help by volunteering to make all > > the test and sample changes. > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > I thought the changes from Raymond were making SCADomain to internally > use Node apis, and that should maintain compatibility. Looking at > changes in revision #r686391 I didn't see any sample changes. > > Right and my question is why do that and risk breaking users with any incompatibilities caused by the impl change? If the new Node2 APIs are what we want people to use them we should change all our sample/demo/test code to show that and deprecated the old SCADomain so people migrate off it to the new APIs. ...ant
