Hi, Luciano. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, that's what I meant to say.
In the real world, we use Tuscany in many different environments, such as command line, Eclipse, JUnit, OSGi, Web applications (application-scoped or servlet scoped). Having the samples to represent some of the typical usages is better than a "fixed" way. As we can see from the discussions, developers find their needs to launch Tuscany in different ways. Thanks, Raymond ________________________________________________________________ Raymond Feng rf...@apache.org Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com ________________________________________________________________ On Apr 2, 2011, at 10:12 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Raymond Feng <enjoyj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> IMO, we shouldn't even try to use one "consistent" way to launch Tuscany in >>> the samples. I don't like the magic plugin approach. The whole idea of >>> Tuscany/SCA is to adapt to whatever technology/container people use instead >>> of reinventing the wheels. Think about Spring, there is no mandatory way to >>> use it. >>> >> >> Last time i looked Spring did have a single consistent set of jars to >> use, and no pom type ones. Surely it will be easier for our users if >> there are a single set of jars we document that they should use? >> >> ...ant >> > > I believe Raymond's remarks were not related to a single consistent > set of jars or pom, but that Spring would allow you to launch Spring > based applications in multiple ways based on ways that users are using > these apps in real deployments, and that it does not provide a spring > specific way to run these applications. > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
