On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:17 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:55 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> What are the things that are not completely trivial? >>> >>> As i said in the previous mail the non-trivial ones remaining are: >>> binding-ws-xml, contribution-xml, definitions-xml, >>> implementation-java-xml, >>> interface-java-xml >>> >> >> I'm not sure about definition-xml, but I wouldn't like to see >> contribution-xml merged with contribution module. >> > > Could you explain why you wouldn't like to see this? I've not looked > at that model in any detail so that could well be correct but it would > be helpful for now or anyone in the future looking for why things are > the way they are if the technical reasons for decisions are on the > mailing list. > > ...ant >
My take on this is that contribution module is about contribution services, defining spis for these services, and extensions points, where contribution-xml is about providing support for handling sca-contribution.xml and sca-contribution-generated.xml files. I like having the separation of concerns applied to these modules to avoid confusion. Also, I don' t see any good technical reason and benefit of merging these modules together. -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
