Sounds good to have the SPIs more easily identifiable. One thing is that the "lots of individual modules" structure is aimed at making Tuscany developer's lives easier and the tuscany-sca bundle jar is aimed at making Tuscany user's lives easier. Should we encourage most uses to use the bundle jar not the individual modules (as discussed on the Geronimo integration thread [1])? I think so, and then having the SPI classes identifiable from the package name not the module name sounds good from that respect.
The bundle jar isn't perfect yet, there's the issue with the dependencies, I also wondered if we should split apart into something like tuscany-scdl4j and tuscany-sca-runtime so you can use the scdl4j jar if you just want to process scdl - in a tool or in an integration scenario like Synapse which wants to use its own runtime, and you use the tuscany-sca-runtime jar when you want a complete runtime like with our standalone or webapp distro or the Geronimo integration? Doing that split could help identify what the APIs and SPIs are. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg21802.html On 8/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there plans to include 'spi' to the names of packages in the spi > module > as part of this effort ? > > Thanks > > - Venkat > > > On 8/21/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Module core contains an o.a.t.sca.scope package. > > > > I'm trying to fix package names to be consistent with the module names > > so o.a.t.sca.scope should be renamed to o.a.t.sca.core.scope, but > > there's already another o.a.t.sca.core.scope in module core! > > > > What is the difference between these two packages? > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
