Hi,
I have shared a recent experience in this regard with comments inline.
Thanks
- Venkat
On 4/20/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One reason the SPI module is so large is
On 3/29/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One reason the SPI module is so large is that it does define many the
interfaces for the components in you diagram. I think there is room
for a reorganization there to clarify the usage
ant elder wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One reason the SPI module is so large is that it does define many the
interfaces for the components in you diagram. I think there is room
for a reorganization there to clarify the usage of those interfaces.
I would
On 3/27/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One reason the SPI module is so large is that it does define many the
interfaces for the components in you diagram. I think there is room
for a reorganization there to clarify the usage of those interfaces.
I would propose we start with
Hi Sebastien
I think it would be worth splitting contribution in two parts.
- Contribution metadata: What's described in sca-contribution.xml and
the relationships with the assembly and interface definition models
(e.g. the list of deployables pointing to assembly composites, maybe
also
On 3/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
On one of the modularization threads it talked about trying to make SCDL and
assembly more consumable like WSDL and WSDL4J, would that be the things in
the Metadata Layer box at the bottom?
No replies to this yet so I'll bring it up
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
By reading through a bunch of e-mails on this mailing list and adding
my imagination, I put together a conceptual diagram at the following
wiki page to illustrate the kernel modulization.
ant elder wrote:
On 3/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
On one of the modularization threads it talked about trying to make
SCDL and
assembly more consumable like WSDL and WSDL4J, would that be the
things in
the Metadata Layer box at the bottom?
No replies to this yet so
Sorry for the delay, I've been out and then tied up at work...
My first comment is most of the code is organized the way you describe.
I do have several big issues with details:
1. A main tenet of the current runtime architecture is that there is
one kernel implementation capable of being
Hi,
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Tuscany kernel modulization
Nice diagram, Raymond, thanks for putting
Hi, Jim.
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Tuscany kernel modulization
Sorry for the delay, I've been out
This diagram looks good to me, i've always found it difficult that we don't
have much in the way of architecture over view doc for Tuscany so this is
helpful.
On one of the modularization threads it talked about trying to make SCDL and
assembly more consumable like WSDL and WSDL4J, would that be
Nice diagram, Raymond, thanks for putting this together.
What I'm struggling with is that this seems fairly similar to the way
the code is organized now. Most of the boxes there already exist and
have interfaces to abstract away their implementation. Everything in
Cross-cutting system
the wholesale, revolutionary rewrite of the kernel...Pointers please
to exact emails.
thanks,
dims
On 3/27/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice diagram, Raymond, thanks for putting this together.
What I'm struggling with is that this seems fairly similar to the way
the code is
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg15978.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg15991.html
r522186
r521957
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg15318.html
in relation to
r517804
And, of course, the code in SVN.
Lastly, we've
I don't see any of the following terms in those emails...Let me take
another tack
I think there is room for a reorganization there to clarify the usage
of those interfaces..
Can you please send a write up in wiki on how to do the
reorganization. You can either augment/enhance what Raymond wrote
Please keep Sebastien's emails in mind. Please don't throw all away
all ideas from his work/email. The objective is to get everyone on the
trunk. Let's try to find a way to get everyone to achieve their goals.
We may not get there in the first release. But we should have a good
story to go along
Hi,
By reading through a bunch of e-mails on this mailing list and adding my
imagination, I put together a conceptual diagram at the following wiki page
to illustrate the kernel modulization.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Kernel+Modulization+Design+Discussions
This
On 3/26/07, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
By reading through a bunch of e-mails on this mailing list and adding my
imagination, I put together a conceptual diagram at the following wiki
page
to illustrate the kernel modulization.
Hi,
I'm poor with colors :-(. I was trying to use different colors to represent
related pieces.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Tuscany kernel
20 matches
Mail list logo
