Folks,
Comments inline...
On 28/02/2011 11:40, Simon Laws wrote:
I was initially assuming that we would retain a way for users to
(re-)compile sample contributions from the source provided in the
binary distribution. The complicating factor in these conversations
seems to be Maven as it leads to a situation where you download the
binary distribution, compile the samples with maven and it downloads
all the jars again. Maybe we shouldn't look to Maven for sample
support. Maybe we should only allow people to recompile samples from
the source distribution but this feels inconvenient as samples without
source seems to be missing the point.
+1 - people should not have to build from the source to use Tuscany - neither should they be forced
to use Maven.
We could go the other way and do away with the jars we ship with the
binary distro and rely more heavily on Maven. I don't really support
this approach. Shipping a self contained binary distribution at least
gives us some confidence that it will work in six months time. I don't
have this level of confidence when using Maven. I recognize that there
has been discussion of shipping the jars formatted as a local repo to
address this.
-1 for removing the binary distro and forcing the use of Maven.
But you ask a good question. What is the binary distribution for?
Three thoughts that immediately come to mind:
1 - A quick start for new users for running samples without the need
to compile anything
+1
2 - A vehicle for shipping all the dependencies require by users or
embedders of the Tuscany runtime without the need to use Maven to
extract them.
+1
3 - An environment were we can reasonably expect other run/build-time
environments such as OSGi and Ant to function correctly.
+1
I'm thinking that If we could make our distribution/sample/osgi story
more accurately/consistently reflect the base + extension story I
think the binary proposition, and hence the samples, would be clearer.
Regards
Simon
