[snip]
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
A few comments:
1) I think the term "componentization" is bit misleading here. By
adopting the SCA assembly to build the Tuscany kernel (system
composite w/ system components), we have componentized most of the key
system functions. My understanding is that we're talking about
sub-modules in the kernel. There are fairly isolated groups of
functions in the core/spi which can be better layered out to achieve
more flexibilities for Tuscany embedders. If we look at the system
SCDL today, we already have a bunch of "include" statements. It seem
to be a good indication to me for more fine-grained assembly of the
kernel. For example, "databinding", "model", "loaders", "federation"
can be the candidates for sub-modules.
2) We ran into a case: The model objects are defined in "spi" which
has dependency on "host-api". To support the case that we need to pass
some model objects to host apis, we had to use generic "Object" to
avoid circular dependencies.
3) For models/loaders, one embedder might choose to use JAXB generated
classes and use JAXB to load SCDLs. Is it possible?
4) To my knowledge, we're putting together a discovery-based
federation for SCA domain. What if we want to support repository-based
(for example, a SVN repository or maven repo) SCA domain? Do we have
the pluggability?
So far we have two levels of grandularity for the Tuscany kernel, a
system composite and a list of system components. I'm looking for
smaller composites which can be used to assemble the system composites
based on the embedder's intensions. Does it make sense?
Thanks,
Raymond
Yes that's along the lines of what I was thinking too, a few modules
facilitating the assembly of a runtime integration.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
