On 1/24/07, Oisin Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23 Jan 2007, at 10:55, Pete Robbins wrote: > I was wondering whether we should package a Tuscany C++ kernel, > which is > the core runtime and cpp language extension, and have a separate > package for > scripting extensions ?? +1 --oh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, so we have a split vote here - some people preferring "Tuscany SCA Native" and others preferring to split out the distributions into something along the following lines: "Tuscany SCA for C++" - contains kernel, C++ extension and C++ samples "Tuscany SCA for Scripting" - contains Python, Ruby, PHP extensions and samples, requires Tuscany C++ "Tuscany SCA for C++ Bindings" - contains WS (Axis2C), REST and SCA binding extensions and samples, requires Tuscany C++ Alternatively, we could split these up even further, into a separate package for each extension. +ves for "Tuscany SCA Native": single downloadable package, no languages named (avoids confusion), unified documentation. -ves for "Tuscany SCA Native": requires lots of other packages to build it (some of which aren't available, e.g. axis on Mac), includes function that users may not need/want +ves for separated packages: User downloads what they want to use or what is available on their platform. Packages clearly say what is inside them. -ves for separated packages: More work to generate and test the combinations of packages, possibility of packages getting out-of-sync with each other (would need some versioning scheme?). We could, of course, offer a single package containing everything as well as the separated packages. Thoughts, further votes, etc appreciated. Andy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
