On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What's wrong with multiple launchers each appropriate to certain use cases? >>> >> >> Nothing, i didn't mean to imply there should just be one single one i >> was commenting that having a launcher per sample didn't seem perfect. >> So i agree with what you've just been suggesting. I do think once we >> have some of these done how we like then we should look at what of the >> code really should be in samples/ or if some of it could be moved to >> be part of the Tuscany modules function. >> >> ...ant >> > > For some of the samples we've separated the launchers from the contributions. > > Because of this we are able to offer a variety of launchers for the > contributions, for example, > > launcher-command-line > launcher-shell > launcher-maven > launcher-embedded-jse > launcher-embedded-osgi > etc > > Each of these demonstrate to the user a different way of launching a > contribution(s). Remember that these are samples so the objective is > not necessarily to provide the most expedient way of implementing the > code but is rather to provide the clearest of demonstrations to the > user of how to lauch contributions using Tuscany. > > I wasn't very clear in my original comment. What I was referring to > specifically was the current launcher-embedded-jse and > launcher-embedded-osgi solution where I originally provided a > parameterized launcher for starting different contributions. On > reflection I don't think this passes the test of being as clear to the > user as we could be. I would prefer to offer a selection of examples > demonstrating the launching different contributions in an embedded > environment. Hence I'm suggesting creating separate launchers inside > these embedded directories instead of a single parameterized launcher. > > Now I hear the shouts of let's have a single launcher. We already have > several examples of that. See launcher-command-line and laucher-shell > for example. If we build a generic launcher to demonstrate use of the > embedding APIs I fear that would demonstrate to the user how smart we > are at building a generic launcher rather than demonstrating how to > use the API. This is what motivated my original comment, i.e. I think > I've included more code to handle the parameterization, which is of no > interest to the user, rather than focusing on use the embedding API to > load and start a contribution. > > Regards > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
I'll have a go at making both styles and we can see which we like best Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
