If the direction is to use Node API, and we know there is an issue with the SCADomain that uses Note API as its implementation, shouldn't we really just fix the issue and continue on the right direction to use Node API instead of reverting SCADomain back ? Fixing the issue should make the Node API more solid, and reverting SCADomain would just cover a possible issue.
Well, just my 2 cents... On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Dan Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me both Ant and Raymond agree on many points. > > 1) Node APIs have advantages over SCADomain APIs including different type > which is a benefit for OSGI. > 2) Node APIs should be favored. SCADomain APIs should be deprecated. > 3) Many samples and test cases use the SCADomain APIs and should be > converted. > > The disagreement seems to stem from: > 1) Implement SCADomain API in terms of Node APIs to reduce sample and test > case changes now. (Raymond) > 2) Implement Node APIs independently and leave SCADomain APIs as is to > reduce build and customer changes now. (Ant) > > I tend to agree with the second path although it might mean more developer > work upfront. I can help with the update too. It seems that this path will > help shield existing usage and allow customers to upgrade from deprecated > SCADomain APIs when they are ready. > > ant elder wrote: >> >> But we can do all that without touching the SCADomain impl so i think it >> would be better not to change it which will avoid any chance of breaking >> anyone. This change has stopped webapps working now and the continuum >> build >> is failing because of that so I'd like to put back the old impl to fix >> this, >> if not permanently at least while this discussion continues. >> >> What are others views on replacing the SCADomain impl? Is it worth doing >> or >> is it safer to just leave it and just deprecate the class? >> >> ...ant >> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> There are a few reasons I did this: >>> >>> 1) Node APIs should be favored over SCADomain APIs as the behavior of the >>> Node APIs is much better aligned with the SCA specifications. >>> >>> 2) There are a lot of samples and testcases using the SCADomain. Swapping >>> the implementation is a simple way to align it with Node APIs without >>> breaking existing code. In fact, I just had to change one itest (where >>> two >>> deployable composites have the same name) to get the full build passed. >> >> That >>> >>> gives us great confidence that this change is not more "breaking" than >> >> other >>> >>> changes by the nature of trunk. >>> >>> 3) The ongoing OSGi enablement will make it possible to create SCANode >>> instances of different types such as JSE, OSGi or JEE. SCADomain can >>> leverage it as well for the purpose of test automation. >>> >>> 4) This change can buy us some buffer to convert all the existing samples >>> and testcases to use Node APIs (thank you for volunteering :-). We can >> >> start >>> >>> to deprecate the SCADomain and migrate to Node APIs. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Raymond >>> >>> From: ant elder >>> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:19 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Port the DefaultSCADomain implementation to use >>> tuscany-node2-impl >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Thanks, Dan Becker > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
