On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi raymond > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, 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". > > When I made the aggregated description I wanted a simple way to > describe what collection of modules an extension needed to depend on. > The Tuscany core SPI has always been somewhat difficult to tie down > and subsequently the dependencies we placed in our existing poms were > somewhat random and hard to describe consistently in this respect. > > Anyhow I made the core pom (simply as a way to describe the collection > of core modules) and needed somewhere to put it so I put it in the > features directory. This was probably a mistake as, having had the > chance to think about this for a couple of weeks now I realize that > the features and these new runtime poms are different. I believe now > that the features are intended to describe fully configured subsets of > the Tuscany runtime that could be releases. These runtime collections > are not that. They are incremental descriptions that build on one > another. In particular the core runtime is the compile dependency that > extensions use. The base runtime builds on this and provides the base > runtime functions that the extensions need for testing (it actually > has more than this in and the precise content hasn't settled down yet > but you get the idea). > > so 1 could easily be solved by moving the *-runtime poms into /modules > which would get my +1. >
I agree, and I have now made that change and tested with a full build. ...ant
