I know everyone is busy with the 1.1 release but any comments on this? ...ant
On Jan 7, 2008 6:03 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Spitting the email below out into a separate thread to discuss runtime: > > The suggestion is that we should be building: > > a) runtimes of various kinds (SCA standalone, embedded within Tomcat, etc) > > b) applications, containing only the code and other artifacts required for > the application itself > > To see what this looks like I've started creating some of this in the > sca/modules/runtime-* projects and associated projects in sca/distributions. > Applications become just jar files with no reference to Tuscany modules and > the runtimes pick up the contributions from a repository folder. Currently > the standalone, and war ones are working, eg you can build distribution/war > and it creates a tuscany.war that can be deployed in Tomcat. The war > distribution includes repository in the top-level webapp folder which > includes a couple of the Tuscany samples to show it works, or you can update > the web.xml to move the repository out of the webapp to make it easier to > add your own contributions. > > If we went for this I was thinking we'd have runtimes like standalone, > war, webapp, tomcat, etc. The current binary distribution would go away and > be replaced by the standalone and war distributions, the webapp one only be > distributed from the Maven repositories and used for building applications > using Tuscany in a webapp, and the tomcat one would be for the Tomcat deep > integration. The standalone and war distributions would come with all the > relevent samples included in their repository folders. > > So what do people think about this approach? Does everyone agree we should > be doing those (a) and (b) suggested above? > > ...ant > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jan 2, 2008 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: R1.1 - Sample/demo ant builds > To: [email protected] > > > Folks, > > Some comments.... > > Yours, Mike. > > ant elder wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008 8:58 AM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> For http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1608 I've put in a > >> change, > >> based on the ant generator plugin, to bring some automation to the > process > >> of building the ant files for the samples and demos. For any sample or > >> demo > >> that requires explicit dependencies, e.g. the webapp samples, I've > >> replaced > >> the static ant file with and automatically generated one. In the case > that > >> some hand crafted ant script is needed, for example, to generate SDOs, > >> then > >> I have the ant generator just build build-dependency.xml which has the > >> dependencies listed and which can then be included in the manually > >> generated > >> build.xml script. > >> > >> I haven't applied this change to all of the samples but it could be > done. > >> If > >> we did have all of the dependencies explicitly described for all of the > >> samples can we get rid of the "all" and "manifest" jars? > >> > >> Simon > > > > > > > > I think its better if applications don't have to know or care about > Tuscany > > internals, that includes knowing all the different Tuscany module names > and > > all the dependencies they use. > > +1 - applications should ideally have ZERO dependence on Tuscany > internals. They should be deployed to an "SCA capable runtime" without > having to know anything about that runtime. > > > We haven't got this right yet so each time we > > release our sample Ant builds break as the build.xml files get out of > date - > > this will be happening for any Ant builds our users have as well. The > "all" > > jar is an attempt to fix this, its a better way IMHO than having > > applications specify every Tuscany module but theres a bit of work still > to > > do to make it work better for webapps. We've also talked before about > > changing all the samples to be simple sca contributions that don't need > any > > mention of the Tuscany internals, this is something I think we really > need > > to do. Both of those things seem better to me than messing about trying > to > > generate build scripts. > > I agree with this sentiment. We should be building: > > a) runtimes of various kinds (SCA standalone, embedded within Tomcat, etc) > > b) applications, containing only the code and other artifacts required > for the application itself > > and then have some regular means of deploying the applications to > appropriate runtimes - some applications could be deployed to "almost > any" SCA runtime while others need specific runtime capabilities such as > a Web server and Servlet support. > > > > > ...ant > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
