>From whats been said so far I'd prefer to keep the two modules named implementation-spring and implementation-spring-runtime. Comments below.
...ant On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Let me clarify a bit here: > > Module 1 (implementation-spring) contains the Java model and XML processors > for <implementation.spring> element. > Module 2 (implementation-spring-runtime) contains the runtime logic > (implementation provider) that dispatches SCA invocations to components > using implementation.spring > > The separation of 1 and 2 is desired so that 1 can be reused by tools or SCA > domain manager without dragging in the runtime code. > The modules already work fine like that - all the runtime dependencies are in the -runtime module so nothing is dragged in when using just the implementation-spring module. So splitting the module into two doesn't appear to provide any benefits and just adds complexity. Having as few modules as possible makes Tuscany simpler to user. Having a consistent module naming pattern makes Tuscany simpler to use. It can be hard to work out what modules are needed when using an extension, consistent naming using the -runtime suffix helps make that simple - you want to use the SCA Spring implementation then you include implementation-spring-runtime - thats quite easy to work out once you're used to the Tuscany naming conventions so I don't think we should break it without good reason. ...ant
