On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:12 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We're changing to use the base plus extension jars approach. There was
> lots of discussion about it, eg this thread:
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hco6gjszho56hla2
>

This thread seems to conclude that we want to use the base +
extensions as mentioned by Simon in the following thread:
http://apache.markmail.org/thread/ofztxhptz2ubl5i3

> /samples
>     I would like these to refer, via maven, to base + extensions as
> appropriate, i.e take the base feature and then
>    any extension runtimes that are required

If I understood it correctly, I'm OK with this concept, but not sure I
agree with the current implementation. If the main goal is to hide the
fine-grained modules complexity from the end user, having the
application developer to still have to add all these entries in the
pom is not better then having the web 2.0 feature. And you might say
that the feature does not follow the "base + extensions", but that can
easily be applied to the features.

Also, it seems that the base-runtime-pom has some strange dependencies
in there (e.g wink, implementation.web,

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/base-runtime-pom/pom.xml?revision=1032909&view=markup&pathrev=1032909

Also, if we are going to the direction where we have  base +
extensions, why all the "models"  are included in the base-runtime.

> Not all the extension have been completely updated for this yet, and
> implementation.web is one that still needs work, I've been waiting on
> it as you said you were going to try to simplify all the *-dojo
> modules: http://apache.markmail.org/message/anrp2fwrqksgdfyy
>
>   ...ant
>

I started looking into this, and I think that there is room to
simplify the widget implementation, but then, particular in the case
of this sample, the end user is totally hidden from this complexity
because the sample was using the web 2.0 feature (which is not the
case anymore after you change).

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Reply via email to