On 10/10/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We've released v1.0 of Tuscany SCA 2 weeks ago... So it's probably the > right time now to ask what people want to do next and try to build a > roadmap for the next few releases. > > Here are a few random thoughts to initiate the discussion. I've just > listed the things that came to my mind this morning, but I'm sure that > there's much much more to add :) > > - Support for transaction and reliability policies > Several users have asked for it, and there's now a public draft of the > transaction policy spec > > - Webapp and EJB module integration > I'd like to track the OASIS work on this and implement it in parallel in > Tuscany. Many users have existing J2EE EJB and EAR modules that they'll > need to integrate in bigger SCA compositions. Also Webapp developers > will need a non-intrusive way to wire a Webapp with other SCA components > in an SCA domain. > > - Conversational and non blocking + callback programming model over > Web2.0 bindings > Seems like a good fit with JSON for example... in particular Ajax > interactions fit really well with the SCA non blocking + callback > programming model. > > - Ability to model client side JavaScript components > Looking at the Store sample for example, I'd like to be able to model > the client Javascript as a component with SCA references to the > ShoppingCart and Catalog services, instead of manually creating JSON and > Atom client proxies in the client Javascript code. > > - Support for Atom using Apache Abdera > Abdera just released their 0.3.0, I've started to look at it and it > looks pretty good. I think we should try to port our Atom/RSS binding to > it and see how it compares with the Rome library which we are currently > using. > > - More modular distributions, in addition to our current all-in-one > distribution, distribute smaller packages that people can choose to > install or not? > > - Some clean up of the core runtime invocation and injection mechanism, > we can probably simplify and actually remove code in a number of places :) > > Could people please jump in and say what they want to see in the next > few releases? What they need for their Tuscany based projects? What is > missing? What needs to be improved or fixed? > > -- > Jean-Sebastien
A roadmap would be good, tis hard though to see beyond specific work items to be done in the near future and to come up with broader statements for what may happen over the coming year. Of the things already mentioned the improvements for JSONRPC for references, callbacks, and browser based components etc sounds really interesting and useful. And along with items already mentioned here are some I think would be good: - Website documentation. There's still lots of detail and improvements we could add to the documentation and its really important to attract users - Resolve JIRAs. Be good if we could all commit to trying to resolve at least a couple of these each week if we're to make much of a dent in the 150 open ones. - Fix nightly builds (looks like this may be going again now) - Fix all the build issues (maven 2.0.6/2.0.7/JDK6/empty repository) so new users building Tuscany have a good experience - Make releasing easier - things like move to maven gpg and/or release plugin so creating releases doesn't take such an effort - Distribution improvements - conclude the ML discussion from a while back on the size and ease of use - Further improve SCA policy support. Good support for things like WS-Security and WS-RM and show using Java/JMS/WS etc and all the QOS stuff really is as easy as just saying something like requires="reliability" - Incremental binding.ws improvements (MTOM, headers, REST/POX etc) - clean up the WS and tooling code so we don't copy so much Axis2 code as it causes such a headache when moving up Axis2 releases and picking up Axis2 fixes - Get binding.jms and implementation.bpel more spec complete. - For JMS maybe have a host-jms module so you don't have to start a separate JMS server or can use the the Geronimo one if thats where Tuscany is running - Get the Geronimo integration and WAR distribution working really well and with all Tuscany extensions so you can take a Tuscany sample contribution jar and it easily runs where ever you deploy it. - Better integration btw script components and bindings and data bindings to show the dynamic language support really does have value - seamlessly wire up Ruby components using Hpricot for HTML processing with binding.http, JavaScript/E4X for XML manipulation with binding.ws etc - Add some sort of mediation capability A couple of other things to think about; i think would be good if we could work a bit more together with one or two others on things instead of each of us going off implementing something individually which i guess started happening more as we tried to get 1.0 out quickly. I also wonder if sometimes these days we seem to get bogged done in lots of detailed discussion when it may be better to just let people get on with coding. ...ant
