Hi,

My original proposal is not only just for pluggable extensions which can be easily removed. The primary use case is for vendors to embed Tuscany and replace some of the system functions. For example, we have the ContributionClassLoaderProvider and Tuscany provides a default implementation. If the vendor decides to override that, a new module will be added but the default one from Tuscany is still there. Now the one from the vendor has higher ranking and it will be the effective one. We can potentially leverage the idea to control the ordering of the module activators and other extensions for a given extension point.

The selection of a set of modules to form a Tuscany runtime is a different topic. We now have the feature/profile idea to group them.

Thanks,
Raymond

--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:13 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Supporting an optional ranking attribute for system services

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
It's easy. The user can just add a "fragment" module that only contains the
META-INF/services declarations. For example, if the default ranking for
Jetty is 1 and Tomcat is 2 and the user wants to use Jetty instead of
Tomcat, he/she can just add a new declaration for Jetty using ranking 3.

Thanks,
Raymond


Wouldn't it be (a lot) easier for the user to just remove the tomcat module?

I think we need to step back a bit and all understand the use cases.
We've currently got tuscany as lots of little modules so you can
configure a system by choosing the modules you want to include, and
working that way i'm not sure i see why we need a ranking mechanism.
If we want to just include all the tuscany modules and then configure
a runtime then explicitly configuring which modules to activate and
the order they start may be easier and more flexible than a ranking
system. And an explicit config file would also do what you need in the
use case you're describing wouldn't it?

...ant

Reply via email to