Hi Jeremy / Jim, first thanks for those answers. I am able to understand your perspectives. But just that one more question. If we do not generate a WSDL what do we publish for clients who which to connect to this component's service? How would client applications know about the service's interfaces and semantics?
Thanks - Venkat On 8/1/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Venkata Krishnan wrote: > >> Jim :-))).. >> >> Please help me understand the scope of "not required". If >> something is not >> required then why have it in the first place? Are these things no >> longer >> relevant to the current Tuscany-Java? > > Jim is echoing a goal that SCA should be simple enough to use and > configure that additional tooling should not be required. For > example, I should be able to look at a SCDL file and understand > what it is doing, or I should be able to work with simple Java > classes and have the runtime figure out what to do. > In the spec group we called this type of user the "notepad" developer. I think this is an important goal for Tuscany as well. For the SCDL I would probably go further and say in most cases it should be trivial to hand-edit. > That's not to say that tooling cannot help - a specialized tool can > make that SCDL file easier to view or edit, an IDE can make editing > Java easier. But tools should be there to assist rather than be > required because the underlying technology is so complex. > > Take for example, java2wsdl. If I am a simple Java developer, there > is a good chance I do not know WSDL and have no interest in being > forced to learn it. But the machinery here needs WSDL to > interoperate with other systems. We can put WSDL in the user's face > by having a tool that generates WSDL that they need to run as part > of a build; alternatively, we can have the runtime handle all the > WSDL stuff under the covers leaving the user in their Java comfort- > zone. I think the latter is better, although we will still need the > tool for those users who do want to use WSDL explicitly. > Both cases I think are important to support (hence "not required"), although I think we should make more effort on the latter since, as Jeremy said, most users probably don't have a need to see the WSDL in bottom-up approaches. For top-down development, we will need to support dealing with WSDL but should make that as straightforward as possible. On the general question of whether to have something if it is not required, I imagine most extensions in Tuscany will follow this pattern. Jim > -- > Jeremy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
