On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote: > > I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation > these are key to understanding Tuscany... > > I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution > jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is important, > both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding. > > Just my humble opinion... > > Jeff > > > > > > +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs. > > The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's > introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside > the webapp. > > I'd suggest the following: > > - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay > away from webapps. > > - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support > <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1]. > > [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
(now back on the dev list) Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have sample-helloworld-ws-service and sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do we just delete the -webapp one? And then you can use the jar built by the sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we already use it with today? That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big change, do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release or wait till after that and just make the changes for 1.0? ...ant
