On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I saw a bunch of changes in the pom.xml for modules to replace the > "fine-grained" dependency to "tuscany-core-runtime". I don't think it's a > good idea for two reasons: > 1. Features are used to describe a collection of modules. At this point, > "modules" and "features" are under two trees. With this change, we cannot > build the "modules" alone any more as it depends on "features". > 2. There are more modules/jars in the tuscany-core-runtime pom than an > extension requires, for example, databinding-json doesn't require core, > host-http, binding-ws, etc. > At least, I want to see a solution for 1. > Thanks, > Raymond
This brings a good question, who is the target for these "aggregation themes" we have been working on (e.g features, shades, etc). To me, these are really targeted to end users which want to be shielded from knowing the Tuscany module dependency graph. Having said that, I don't think Tuscany modules should be using these at all, other then the issues already mentioned by Raymond, I wonder about the side effect on modularity as well as side effects the the complexity for applications embedding/extending the Tuscany runtime. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
