Hi Jeremy, Makes good sense to me... reuse though component isolation is a good thing to promote so makes more sense than duplication... also seperates better the service provider and consumer...
On 16/02/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have the new webapp runtime going but ran into an issue with the structure of the calculator sample. In M2, the web calculator used the same composite definition as the standalone version - it included the client classes but that code was never executed. With the 1.0 model, there are specific components that bridge from the unmanaged to managed environments (tuscany:webapp and tuscany:launched respectively). The issue comes if we use the simplest form of SCDL for the calculator composite as it contains a :launched component that is rejected by the webapp runtime. I'd like to propose separating the common composite out from the standalone sample. This would give us 3 modules rather than 2: * common composite * standalone client * webapp client I think this shows the type of structure we would recommend to users. An alternative would be to duplicate the implementation code in the two samples, which makes each one a little simpler but drifts away from what seems like best practice. I plan on starting this refactor tomorrow. -- Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
