On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote:
> > OK subsequent to a chat over on freenode #tuscany is seems that there > are four questions we are trying answer independently of the way > samples are named. How to present: > > contribution build, > contribution test, > contribution launch, > contribution client > > Personally I'd like to see sample contributions be presented as such > and be separate from the launchers that start them up. So generally > the pattern would be. > > contribution build = mvn or ant or IDE in the contribution module > contribution test = mvn or ant or IDE in the contribution module > contribution launch = command line launcher or script that runs the launcher > contribution client = separate module > I like the general ideas, some comments without any conclusions: - if the client is in a separate module then both launch and client will need to use distributed domain support. - if the test is actually running the contribution with Tuscany (as opposed to being just simple unit tests of the classes) then its going to need to include similar code and dependencies as the launch and client - it seems like there are two types of samples - samples demonstrating SCA, or samples demonstrating running Tuscany. Maybe it would help if we more clearly separated these, eg the calculator-equinox sample is really showing how to run Tuscany in Equinox, it doesn't need to include the calculator contribution code and instead could just use the actual calculator sample contribution. The sample/webapp/helloworld sample does something to that by using the contribution from sample/helloworld and running it within a webapp runtime. > This seems to be the case to a certain extent already for some of the > helloworld based samples when combined with the helloworld-scaclient. > In the helloworld case the contribution launch is currently provided > by the module itself. To me this is less clear in instructing the user > what a contribution is all about and how to handle one in real life > but I'm not so opposed to suggest removing it. > I quite like being able to run a contribution with mvn tuscany:run, though it obviously only works with mvn so if we're supporting Ant we need something else as well (which we do have currently with the bin/tuscany.bat in a binary distribution). > Anyhow, how do people feel about this approach in general? > > Simon > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
