Hi,
I think we're talking about two different things:
1) Should Java and WSDL interface support part of the Tuscany kernel?
I agree with Sebastien that we can go either way with the modulized kernel
amd I don't have any preferences.
2) How do we get a set of built-in processors registered with the
ArtifactProcessorExtensionPoint?
We have three options to provide the registration logic:
a. in the embedded host
b. in a system-level ModuleActivator impl which can be packaged into a
runtime module that integrates other modules with the core.
c. in a ModuleActivator impl by the owning module that provides the
processor
I prefer option b.
Option a is not flexible because it forces all hosting environments to
duplicate the logic.
Option c addes compile-time dependency to core-spi.
Option b is the middle ground.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Should host-embedded depend on the WSDL and Java interface support?
was: svn commit: r527581
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
