Comments inline.
Simon
ant elder wrote:
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)
Yes in principle, but let's keep the number of different flavours of
the complete runtime down to the minimum.
b) applications, containing only the code and other artifacts required for
the application itself
Yes, definitely.
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.
>
If we can do this with a smaller number of distinct runtimes, I think
that would be preferable to having the complete runtime in 4 or more
different packagings.
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.
Would the webapp distro be used to put a complete copy of the Tuscany
runtime in the webapp being built, for webapp containers that don't
know anything about Tuscany? I think an ant tool to do this, based
on a locally installed runtime, would be useful.
So what do people think about this approach? Does everyone agree we should
be doing those (a) and (b) suggested above?
I'd prefer a common core and environment-specific deltas for the various
flavours, if we can work out how to arrange that. I have some ideas
which I'll send in a follow-up post.
Simon
...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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
