Thanks. ...And what about JMS support?
On 11/10/09, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > Its still TBD and in progress. I've added a shaded jar for webservices > support so theres now tuscany-base [1] and tuscany-webservices [2]. > The base jar includes all the Tuscany runtime, Java components, SCA > and RMI bindings, and distributed domain support. The webservices jar > includes interface.wsdl and the WS binding. Running standalone you > also need add Jetty jars yourself. These should be considered open to > change for now, any suggestions on better or different ways to arrange > them welcome . > > ...ant > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/tuscany/sca/tuscany-base/2.0-SNAPSHOT/tuscany-base-2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar > [2] > http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/tuscany/sca/tuscany-webservices/2.0-SNAPSHOT/tuscany-webservices-2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM, scatest4 <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've been trying the tuscany-base jar, it does seem much easier. How >> can I use it and have support for things like <binding.ws> or >> <binding.jms>, is that still TBD? >> >> On 11/3/09, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:47 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> FYI, I've started looking again at using the shade plugin to build >>>>> jars containing multiple Tuscany modules. See >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/shades/. That >>>>> creates a 'base' jar that contains everything needed to run Tuscany >>>>> standalone or in webapps that use Java components and they can >>>>> participate in a distributed domain. It requires JDK6. I've also >>>>> started adding support for remote use of the SCAClient API which will >>>>> also go in the base jar so clients can use the single jar to access >>>>> services in the domain. Its still work in progress but feel free to >>>>> come and help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As long as this is something optional, I'm +0. In a side note, it >>>> would be good to understand the issue that you are trying to solve >>>> (some usage scenarios), otherwise it seems that we have different >>>> options that are more flexible and should have the same end user >>>> experience (e.g features, node/domain launchers, etc). >>>> >>> >>> The point of shaded jars is to make it easier to use the tuscany jars >>> and dependencies. >>> >>> We dont have a very good story for this in Tuscany so far, the problem >>> with the feature modules is that they only work with Maven (and IMHO >>> aren't in a very useful set of groupings), the launchers are only >>> really useful when using the standalone runtime and they need an >>> installed distribution. Because of those issues we're exposing users >>> to the internals of Tuscany and forcing them to try to understand how >>> the many tuscany and dependency jars fit together, and that set of >>> jars is continually changing so we keep breaking people. There will be >>> uses where the flexibility of the many modules may be needed but there >>> are also uses where its not, so shaded jars should make those >>> significantly easier, >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >
