On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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). > > > IMHO the web20 feature is too course grained and drags in too many dependencies that you don't need. The point of the base + extension approach is that it makes it easy to work out what you need, you always have base and you add *-runtime jars for any extensions used in the SCA composites, and thats what we've been changing all the samples to demonstrate. Not all the extensions work completely like this yet, eg implementation-widget, because of those dojo extensions, but if we can merge those into other runtime modules then the issue goes away. ...ant
