Also calculator-osgi, calculator-rest-osgi and logging scribe are failing...

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's been a full day since I've proposed the *-contribution renaming and
>> no negative reactions so I'll proceed with doing the changes tomorrow
>> morning.
>
>
> I've completed the renaming of the contribution-* samples to
> *-contribution. Some observations below:
>
>    - store is a contribution? it uses impl.widget, is it a webapp as well?
>    - i see we have poms in each and every directory. do you find it better
>    having a single pom at the root level of the samples folder? are things
>    easier to maintain this way?
>    - should artifact names reflect the directory name?
>    - does logging-scribe fit better into the applications or learning-more
>    section?
>    - moved helloworld-jms into a separate binding-jms folder. is there any
>    reason it was in implementation-web?
>    - wouldn't implementation-extension fit better in a "extending-tuscany"
>    category? in time we'll also add this type of samples for bindings and 
> other
>    things and they'll be hard to find inside the learning-more folder...
>    - what's the async folder? it's got modules-like pom and seems to
>    include a launcher... shouldn't the launcher get into running-tuscany and
>    the other one into getting-started as comments say it demonstrates
>    synchronous/asynchronous invocation?
>    - there are a number of samples which are not marked either as
>    contributions or webapps: maven-osgi-junit, distributed-osgi,
>    implementation-composite folder. Should these samples have "-contribution"
>    appended at the end? would that make the names unnecessarily long?
>
> The faster I get your feedback on the above points, the faster we approach
> completing this task.
>
> I'm currently performing a full build locally. The
> running-tuscany/embedded-* , binding-ws/helloworld-ws-sdo-contribution and
> implementation-osgi/dosgi-calculator-operations samples are failing they're
> tests. I've commented them out in their parent poms... Do you have any idea
> on how can those be fixed?
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Ant,
>>>
>>> I've been looking around and seen that node.xml is actually something
>>> already existing. Is this something we added or is it in the spec as well?
>>> Indeed, it would add consistency if you can generate and load node.xml as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> The "run" command is exactly what I'm suggesting as well as the startup
>>> parameter. Didn't have the time to look deeper into the code but i believe
>>> it doesn't require major changes in the shell code.
>>>
>>> What do you think about a history/log feature? I'm thinking of something
>>> like logging all the commands you enter in the shell in a tuscany.log file
>>> in the directory from where you start the shell. This is helpful when you
>>> start doing configurations for a project and when you're done you already
>>> have a script with all your work. This is inspired by Spring Roo, you can
>>> check out their shell to get the feel of these features.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:43 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > From what I understand node.xml would be the final configuration that
>>>> you
>>>> > would export from the shell after adding/installing all the
>>>> > contributributions (please correct me if i'm wrong).
>>>>
>>>> Yep thats what i was thinking would be useful.
>>>>
>>>> > Wouldn't this bring a
>>>> > bit more overhead as it adds a new syntax, etc. Does it bring more
>>>> things
>>>> > other than a succession of simple commands? (It's possible i haven't
>>>> fully
>>>> > understood what node.xml contains...).
>>>>
>>>> What isn't so obvious is that this is a facility that already exsists
>>>> with the Node API. Theres some examples of it in the nodes itests, eg
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/itest/nodes/two-nodes-two-vms-hazelcast/client-config.xml
>>>>
>>>> So having the shell support loading and saving those types of config
>>>> files is really just adding consistency.
>>>>
>>>> > Also, in the case where they would
>>>> > both do the same thing, I'd go for self-explaining scripts rather than
>>>> plain
>>>> > xml which developers dislike.
>>>> > Being able to export the full application with all the dependencies
>>>> included
>>>> > sounds like a must-have to me.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The scripts of shell commands seem useful to me too, and as i
>>>> commented earlier it is possible already by redirecting the console
>>>> input though that isn't very flexible. How about adding something like
>>>> a "run" command to the shell that has a parameter thats a url to a
>>>> file containing shell commands and executes them? It might be good to
>>>> also be able to have that as a parameter when starting the shell so
>>>> the commands in the file run as soon as the shell starts.
>>>>
>>>> How does that sound, any modifications or alternative suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>   ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to