On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The current Tuscany Webapp support that we have in 1.x is described on the >> wiki page at [1], I'd like to start bringing this up in the 2.x code base so >> we need to decide what we want to support. Right now i'm focusing on similar >> support as we have in 1.x where the webapp is a container for a Tuscany >> runtime and not so much on the webapp as an SCA contribution which requires >> deep integration into the servlet container (which we're working on >> separately with the Tuscany-Geronimo plugin work). >> >> So in 1.x we support three ways of defining the composites included in the >> webapp: >> >> - using a META-INF/sca-contributions.xml >> - by including deployable composite files within a folder named >> META-INF/sca-deployables >> - by using an WEB-INF/web.composite application composite >> >> How about dropping those first two and only supporting web.composite in >> 2.x? >> >> ...ant >> >> [1] >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/SCA+Java+Web+Applications >> > > I'd be happy to let 2 go, i.e META-INF/sca-deployables, as this is a > Tuscany extension. Why would we get rid of support for > META-INF/sca-contributions.xml? > > Simon > I'm not sure about META-INF/sca-contributions.xml, was throwing it out there to see what people thought :) A META-INF/sca-contributions.xml file is really saying that the webapp .war file is an SCA contribution that can be contributed to an SCA runtime, but the way we run the webapps with Tuscany embedded thats not quite how we handle it. So one thing we could do is just not support it and just support local assembly within the webapp with the web.composite application composite (section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the WD05 of the JEE spec). That simpler than supporting them both but there's probably pro's and con's. ...ant
