My understanding is the definitions.xml from the SCA spec can be used to
describe what the bindingType/implementationType always or may provide
certain intents by the nature of the binding. That's why I think the tuscany
extension declaration should be separate from the definitions.xml.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:34 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Declaring extensions as being available in the domain
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I share the same concerns as Sebastien raised. Mixing the policy
definitions with tuscany runtime extensions in one file doesn't seem to
be
right. For example, we could have two tuscany extensions to support
binding.ws, one is based on Axis2 while the other one is based on CXF.
With the current approach, we will see three files:
definitions.xml for binding.ws bindingType which is independent of the
underlying ws stack
two META-INF/services/... files, one for binding-ws-axis2 and the other
for binding-ws-cxf
With the new proposal, I cannot achieve the pluggability unless we
duplicate the bindingType info for binding.ws in two definitions.xml.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:56 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Declaring extensions as being available in the
domain
Venkata Krishnan wrote:
>
> > Hi Ant,
> >
> > Yes, this sounds good to me - that will make all meta-data related to
> > an
> > extension available in just one place.
> >
> > - Venkat
> >
> >
> > > > What i was thinking of was along the lines of adding Tuscany
> > > specific xml
> > > to
> > > the definitions file that replaces everything we currently put in
> > > the
> > > meta-inf/services files for binding and implementation extensions,
> > > eg
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > <definitions
> > > xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0";
> > > ... >
> > >
> > > <bindingType type="binding.ws" ... >
> > >
> > > <tuscany:binding
> > >
> > >
> > >
providerFactory="org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.ws.axis2.Axis2BindingProviderFactory"
> > >
> > > model="org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.ws.WebServiceBinding" />
> > >
> > > </bindingType>
> > >
> > > </definitions>
> > >
> > >
> IMHO this is mixing different concerns that should be kept independent:
>
> - domain != runtime
> - policy definitions != runtime extensions
> - application level definitions != system definitions
>
> If you don't like the current META-INF/services approach and really
> want
> to change all that, I'd suggest to come up with a proper extension
> mechanism, independent of SCA policy definitions, something like OSGi
> for
> example would be more suitable for this.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
So I get the impression that you don't like this but you neglect to say
whether you think the spec means this or not. Would be useful to know as
if
we think the spec means that we have to do more with the definitions.xml
file and Tuscany doesn't want to do it then we have to take our concerns
elsewhere.
Simon
