Andrew Borley wrote:
[snip]
That sounds good - unfortunately Windows doesn't support sym links, so
we have to have a slightly different process. The current build
creates TuscanySCA.dll from TuscanySCAModule.cpp only and puts it and
TuscanySCAProxy.py into extensions/python/bin.
Ok, I can change the build back to reflect that on Linux:
- libtuscany_sca_python.so will contain the core of the code.
- SCA.so will be built from TuscanySCAModule.cpp to contribute the
python module definition.
I think it's better to keep things in sync between Windows and Linux. Is
that OK?
If a user wants to install the Python module lib into
/usr/lib/python/site-packages and get TuscanSCAProxy pre-compiled then
he can still run a setup -install script. Do you think we should package
TuscanySCASetup.py in the distro and where do you think it should go?
extensions/python/bin? anywhere else?
I think extensions/python/bin would be the right place - we may also
need a .sh file to run TuscanySCASetup.py in the right way - so it can
find the compiled library and scripts. Alternatively, what we could do
for binary releases is use the bdist_rpm option in the build to create
an installable RPM containing the library and extension. There is a
bdist_wininst option that does something similar on windows.
Lastly, I think it would nice if we could name the module just sca and
leave the Tuscany out (like we do in CPP, Java etc.). The client API
would be sca.locateService(...). Also I looked at other python packages
and most of them seem to be lowercase so that's why I'm proposing "sca"
instead of "SCA" like we have in Ruby (where module names start with an
uppercase letter).
What do you think?
Yep, I'm good with that too. You don't think it's a bit presumptious
to say "sca on Python" == Tuscany? Let's do it and see when/if people
complain ;-)
Yes, I think we provide an implementation of an SCA API. The API does
not say "Tuscany", it just says "SCA". People who want the Tuscany
implementation of the API load the Tuscany libraries and modules. People
who want another implementation will load that particular library.
What do you think?
Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
