Alright naming the module tuscany-domain sounds ok for now and I'm fine with keeping it out of the NodeFactory/Node APIs.
...ant On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > If I understand correctly, section 10 of the SCA assembly spec defines a set > of "logical" operations that be performed against an SCA domain. It's a > deployment view of the SCA domain (i.e, the metadata of the domain). We > should not mix it with the Tuscany NodeFactory/Node APIs that provides a > runtime view of the Tuscany implementation of SCA. > IMO, we can use the APIs described in section 10 as the base to build up the > SCA domain manager. As we have discussed before, we have different ways to > "form" and SCA domain: > * static vs dynamic > * discovery vs central-registry > For different schemes, the implementation of the SCA domain operations can > be different too. > Having said this, I suggest that we check it in under a module such as > tuscany-domain. I'm not sure if we should expose them to the runtime node > which already uses the EndpointRegistry (DomainRegistry) to access the > metadata of an SCA domain. > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Composite+Application+Deployment+with+SCA+Domain > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Domain > > Thanks, > Raymond > ________________________________________________________________ > Raymond Feng > [email protected] > Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com > Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com > ________________________________________________________________ > On May 25, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Simon Laws wrote: > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Last week I started having a look at what implementing the APIs that > > are described in section 10 of the SCA Assembly spec would look like. > > As the commit comment said [1] there wasn't a clear idea where it > > would go, a user had asked me about it, and I just wanted to see if > > Tuscany provided everything needed to support the APIs. It turns out > > Tuscany has already pretty much everything needed and it was quite > > easy to get to work. I quite like these APIs so now I'd like to move > > it from contrib to trunk and start seeing how it can be more > > integrated with the main Tuscany code. > > ...ant > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tuscany-commits/201005.mbox/%[email protected]%3e > > > I'd certainly like to have a go with them so +1 from me. > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > >
