Some more comments in line. To prevent this discussion being too theoretical and long winded it would possibly be appropriate for those of us who have been working on this stuff to try and phrase the scenarios that are important to us in terms of how existing (or possibly new) interfaces would be used. I'll have a go when I've got my act together.
Simon On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[email protected]> wrote: > Raymond Feng wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We had a debate on this topic. See: >> >> http://osdir.com/ml/dev-tuscany.apache.org/2010-06/msg00164.html >> >> And apparently, we didn't reach agreement. > > It's probably a good idea to restart that discussion and find a consensus on > this. After having not looked at the Tuscany code for a while I must admit I > was a little confused by the multiple Node types. > > I'll try to participate in the discussion as much as I can, although I have > little spare time these days. In the meantime, I'd like to continue to use > the mainstream Node implementation for some time in samples/launcher-shell, > as it's what's working with webapps, all the test cases, samples etc. > I haven't got my head round these either yet, for which I apologize, but it seems sensible to try and support something that looks like the features that the spec describes. We do need to agree where it lives and how it enables us to populate our picture of the domain and subsequently how this gives rise to the running of configured nodes. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to agree on the commands for shell. This >> will help us understand how users use SCA. Then it can be translated into a >> set of API/SPIs. Mixing different steps into one layer could prevent us from >> seeing the complete user story. > > And like I tried to say in another email in this thread, I think we should > distinguish: > - Domain management, assembling components in a domain; > and > - Runtime instance configuration and management, loading a contribution in a > runtime instance and starting/stopping it. > > They are really different IMHO, for example an SCA domain administrator can > spend a day assembling components in a domain before starting a single > runtime instance, and stopping a server doesn't mean that he's removing a > composite from the SCA domain... There are two extremes here I think that we are touching on. 1/ The process of bringing all the contributions of the domain together is completely separate from the actual starting of the nodes that run the separate composites of the domain. In this case some tool (even csh or explorer or a gui tool) could be used to pull together the required contributions and ensure that everything is present. Once done someone will use a separate tool (the command line shell) to start the nodes to run the separate parts of this domain. I've purposely not defined here how the nodes are configured. 2/ The case where the domain is constructed on the fly by running sepearate nodes which "join" the domain and exchange information about the services they provide. You may actually consider that 1 and 2 are the same thing where in 2 the process of readying the contributions for the domain is out of band and simply not discussed. -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
