I would prefer to avoid introducing a Tuscany-specific way considering we
already have solutions for defining the deployable composites. But you could
propose the idea to the spec group to see what they think.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:43 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re:
Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>
wrote:
b3/ one or more composite files but which are present in
META-INF/sca-deployables (is this still supported?)
No, i think i took out support for that earlier on in 2.x when porting
from 1.x, there may be a ML thread. Something like that still seems
like a good idea to me though to make it seem easy to create a simple
contribution. I'd quite like the spec people to extend the application
composite concept in the JEE spec to the Assembly spec so you can have
something like application composite with a standard name in a regular
contribution like you can have a web.composite in a .war contribution.
I guess we could add support for that to Tuscany and see what the spec
people think of it?
Any comments on that? Would anyone mind if the standalone runtime
supported using a single composite named "application.composite" in a
contribution as well as the meta-inf/sca-contribution.xml approach?
...ant
