On 5/15/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Comments inline. Luciano Resende wrote: > So, just to make clear, the plan here, while using sca-contribution, > is to > call SCADomain.newInstance(String DomainURI) and then we would require > sca-contribution to be available, so we can find the root of the > contribution, and then we would get deployables from that ? Yes > > What should be the behaviour if no sca-contribution is specified ? the > SCA > spec does mention this file is optional. Also, what we do if no > deployables > is specified ? If you don't give any deployable composites to newInstance and you don't have any deployables in an sca-contribution.xml, you end up with an empty domain, that's all. > > For a sample using sca-contribution.xml, what do you want to > demonstrate in > particular with this sample ? > How about specifying deployables :) I see two interesting use cases: - the webapp sample - the implementation-composite sample, where you'll list only the outer composite as deployable, showing that the inner composite is not a deployable. > On 5/15/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 5/15/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> > ant elder wrote: >> > > Here's todays weekly IRC chat log. The only topic discussed was the >> > > SCA 0.90release, the current plan is to cut a >> > > 0.90 release branch this Wednesday. >> > > >> > > We went through the open JIRA's targeted at 0.90 to see if anyone >> wanted >> > > particular JIRA's as must fix for 0.90 and which ones could be >> > > defered. The >> > > current JIRA's for 0.90 are: >> > > >> > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312478 >> >> > > >> > > . Tomorrow I'm going to move all of those out of 0.90 except for >> > > TUSCANY-1247, TUSCANY-1248, and TUSCANY-1265. If anyone has any >> others >> > > which should be in 0.90 just say. >> > > >> > > The samples were also discussed, sounds like most of them are ready, >> > > there's >> > > some issues around the those related to how to write Tuscany >> extensions, >> > > discussion will continue on the mailing list. >> > > >> > > Venkat will run RAT against the current distro's and email the >> mailing >> > > list >> > > the results, slaws will try the distro's on linux. >> > > >> > > The latest distributions built of the trunk code as of just now >> > (r537917) >> > > are at: >> > > http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/latest/< >> > http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/latest/>. >> > > >> > > Please try these out and report any issues (or even just that you >> > > tried and >> > > a sample worked!) >> > > >> > > ...ant >> > > >> > >> > Sorry that I missed yesterday's IRC chat. I have a few more things to >> > add to our TODO list for the release: >> > >> > I'd like to have in the binary distro a JAR containing the Tuscany >> > source that people can attach to the Tuscany JAR for debugging in >> an IDE >> > (we already discussed this on the list but can't find the thread now). >> >> >> Could just the src distribution be used for this for 0.90? I've just >> tried >> and Eclipse works fine using that as the src for the Tuscany all jar. >> >> >> > I am not sure where we are with our Webapp story. If we go with the >> > context listener approach, we need to adjust it to take its >> > configuration and list of deployables from sca-contribution.xml >> instead >> > of web.xml. If we go with another approach we need to adjust the >> sample. >> > >> > For consistency, SCADomain.newInstance() should also work without a >> list >> > of composites and take its configuration from sca-contribution.xml if >> > there is one. >> > >> > We need some samples to show sca-contribution.xml (adjust some of the >> > existing samples). >> > >> > The above items are important IMO as they touch APIs used by >> application >> > developers. >> >> >> I've taken all the config based on init-params out of the webapp host so >> currently it just uses whatever composites it finds in the top-level >> classes >> folder of the webapp. The calculator-web sample works with this and >> doesn't >> specify any special config. is this not enough for 0.90? Making all composites deployable is going to break in most cases.
Its not *all* composites, its only those in the top level folder, can't the ones that shouldn't be deployed just go somewhere else? Anyway, I'm find with the sca-contrabution.xml approach if someone can get it done soon. ...ant
