Data integration is something needed in SCA. The main idea around Implementation.das [1] is to integrate DAS and SCA to allow exposing services that interact with a persistent layer in a declarative fashion hiding some of the implementation details from the service developer. Some more info is also available in [3].
As discussed on the following thread [4], we have many other dependencies, and I'd like to still treat the DAS dependency as the others. As for inclusion on the next release distros, I think this is something that needs to be accessed around the time we cut the next branch, if you would ask me today, I'd say implementation.das still need a little more work before it could be included on a release, and it is also waiting for the DAS beta1 release to get approved. As for your comment around build issue :
On the DAS packaging specifically, I'm unable to build the SCA trunk because of implementation.das issues (see my post of yesterday). I'm sure we'll figure these issues out eventually, but this points out the problems with tightly coupling SCA builds to a particular level of DAS, which is moving forward rapidly (that's great!)
this was caused by SDO dependencies, and affected many other modules on the Tuscany SCA build, but looks like Raymond and I have addressed all of them now and things should be back to normal and stable. Note that you might need to re-build the latest SDO from trunk to get the fixes. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg18908.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09978.html [3] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/das-overview.data/das-data-services-v01.pdf [4] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19072.html On 7/12/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for restarting the discussion on this. I think DAS is in a special position because it's part of our project and therefore we have the opportunity to choose whether these DAS components are packaged and released with Tuscany SCA or with Tuscany DAS. For other SCA extensions, we as Tuscany could only choose whether to make them "core" or "additional" since it would be up to the other project to decide whether to package them as part of its releases. I'd therefore like to take these as separate discussions (hence the change of subject line on this post). On the DAS packaging specifically, I'm unable to build the SCA trunk because of implementation.das issues (see my post of yesterday). I'm sure we'll figure these issues out eventually, but this points out the problems with tightly coupling SCA builds to a particular level of DAS, which is moving forward rapidly (that's great!) I think the alternative packaging that I proposed would be better for both SCA and for DAS. For SCA, it reduces the number of moving parts, instability, and opportunity for build breaks. For DAS, it creates an component that extends both SCA and SDO to add significant value. These base dependencies should be quite stable from now on, so DAS builds would be largely independent of the current state of the SCA and SDO trunks. What do other people think about this? Simon ant elder wrote: > Was there any further discussion about this (I'm catching up on mail after > being away so likely missed things)? Its an interesting question i > think. So > far we seem to be operating in that everyone can just add what extensions > they choose to trunk we don't need to get any consensus first. I quite like > this approach but there are other ways. One alternative could be to have > some 'core' set of extensions and another 'additional' set. The core set we > deem by consensus are the official/production/stable/??? ones, and we need > to vote to get an extension included in that core set, but anyone can add > what they like to the 'additional' set. Do others have any opinions on this > or suggestions on alternative approaches? > > ...ant > > On 7/3/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I'd like to restart the earlier discussion in >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19224.html >> about whether implementation.das and implementation.data should be >> packaged with SCA releases or DAS releases. >> >> I think it's better for these to be packaged with DAS releases as >> the code will be more aligned with evolving DAS capabilities than >> with evolving SCA capabilities. This will allow new features to be >> added as and when it makes sense for DAS to move up to support them. >> >> Simon >> >> Luciano Resende wrote: >> >> > Now that we are going to have a DAS release out, I'd like to plan to >> > have implementation.das and implementation.data available for the next >> > release. >> > >> > I also like to have some improvements to the Contribution Services, >> > such as import/export and other scenarios that have been described on >> > the list recently. I'll update the wiki with these items. >> > >> > On 7/2/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> Posting to tuscany-user list as well to get input. >> >> >> >> Any real world scenarios/samples that can be shared by users? It would >> be >> >> great if we could start building a library of tips and real usage >> >> examples.. a knowledge base. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Haleh >> >> >> >> On 7/2/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On 7/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > On 7/2/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On 7/2/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hi, >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > I am looking at the Policy Framework and shall update the wiki >> on >> >> > the >> >> > > > > specifics soon. Once this is done to some level, I'd also >> >> like to >> >> > > help >> >> > > > a >> >> > > > > bit with the ws-* things (may be WS-Security to start with) >> >> that Ant >> >> > > has >> >> > > > > listed on the wiki page. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > - Venkat >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On 6/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > With the SCA 0.91 release now being voted on how about >> >> starting on >> >> > > > 0.92? >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I've already been adding some things I'm interested in >> getting >> >> > done >> >> > > to >> >> > > > > the >> >> > > > > > next release wiki page - >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents- >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > so far thats mainly related to improving web services >> >> > functionality. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > So anyone else interested in helping with an 0.92 release or >> >> have >> >> > > any >> >> > > > > > function they'd like to suggest or add to the wiki page? How >> >> does >> >> > > > aiming >> >> > > > > > for >> >> > > > > > getting it done 4 - 6 weeks again sound? >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > ...ant >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > The above link has an extrenuous "-" on the end. Taking that off >> >> gets >> >> > me >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > the page. Can we move this information across the to the new >> wiki >> >> > space >> >> > > ( >> >> > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Home) so >> >> that >> >> > > > everyone (including non committers) can add to it? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I'm working on the next phase of the distributed runtime which I >> >> want >> >> > to >> >> > > > get >> >> > > > into the next release. This involves a few items. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > SCA Binding >> >> > > > Topology model >> >> > > > Distributed domain >> >> > > > Node implementation >> >> > > > Management assembly >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Also I need some of the ws items, in particular the ability to >> run >> >> > > without >> >> > > > wsdl, so can help out there. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > We need to do something about logging and events to improvide >> >> runtime >> >> > > > usability. We've talked about it before but not done anything >> yet. >> >> > Ties >> >> > > > into >> >> > > > the management assembly. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I'd also like to see the JMS binding in the release but can't >> >> commit >> >> > to >> >> > > > doing lots more work on including spec features. It's been >> working >> >> > fine >> >> > > > for >> >> > > > me in my limited synchronous/rpc model. If I get time I'll take >> >> a look >> >> > > to >> >> > > > see what it will take to add minimum asynch support but if >> >> anyone else >> >> > > > fancies having a go at this then it's a good way to learn about >> >> > Tuscany >> >> > > > extensions. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > All these sound good, but its starting to sound a lot to get done >> in >> >> > just >> >> > > a >> >> > > few weeks. How does the suggesting timeframe of 4 or so weeks >> sound? >> >> > > >> >> > > We'd talked once about having a release specifically targeting >> things >> >> > like >> >> > > logging, events, and error handling. I'd still like to do that, if >> >> > anyone >> >> > > wants to start now thats great but I doubt I'd have much time to >> help >> >> > this >> >> > > release. >> >> > > >> >> > > ...ant >> >> > > >> >> > I think 4 weeks is a bit too short. Given that we are getting into >> >> holday >> >> > season I like the sound of 6 weeks better. >> >> > >> >> > I agree there is a lot there but in the spirit of your WS list I >> wasn't >> >> > proposing that all of it gets done. I do think we need to make a >> >> start on >> >> > the logging/errors sooner rather than later though even if it >> >> doesn't get >> >> > into the next release. I'll offer my effort to help move it along >> >> once the >> >> > distributed work starts drawing to a close. >> >> > >> >> > Simon >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
