Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think we should start to leverage the extensibility story (see the
thread titled "The pluggability for Tuscany runtime extensions")
instead of hard-coding all the processors into the SimpleRuntimeImpl.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:14 AM
Subject: svn commit: r527581 - in
/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-embedded: pom.xml
src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/host/embedded/SimpleRuntimeImpl.java
Raymond,
I agree that we need to leverage the runtime extensibility story, for
runtime extensions :)
But are the WSDL and Java interface support really extensions or part of
the base SCA assembly support?
On one hand, no, they are not real extensions as they are part of the
base SCA assembly spec. So we don't need to handle them as extensions,
SimpleRuntimeImpl can depend on them the same way as it depends on the
assembly-xml module.
On the other hand, we could consider them as extensions, as Java and
WSDL are just two of many programming languages that can be used to
define service interfaces. To do this we just need two new Maven modules
hosting their ModuleActivators. Going further, we could even consider
assembly-xml as an extension, and have a ModuleActivator for it as well.
So, our new modularized kernel structure allows for both approaches.
It's a matter of where we want to draw the line between core SCA and
extensions. At the moment, I'm tempted to follow the structure of the
SCA specifications to draw these lines. What's in the SCA assembly spec
is part of the base, what's not in the SCA assembly spec is extensions.
But I could be convinced otherwise...
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
