Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
[snip]
Simon Nash wrote:
Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have
moved beyond that stage and are doing real development using Tuscany,
samples are not very important. If people in this category do want
samples, they are likely to just want to refer to samples source code
to cut and paste snippets as necessary. Having pre-built sample binaries
isn't important for these users, and having the main lib directory
polluted/bloated by samples dependencies is a positive nuisance because
there's no easy way for them to find and remove the redundant files.
I didn't think we were polluting the lib directory with sample
dependencies, do you have a concrete example?
I thought this thread was discussing the case of a sample having a
dependency that the runtime does not have. If there are no such cases
at present, then the issue doesn't arise. However, there could be
such cases in the future as we add more "application-style" samples,
and it would be good to have an idea about how such dependencies would
be handled.
Having these files in Tuscany's lib directory isn't just wasting a few
bits on the disk. It can be a problem if their version levels conflict
with other versions of the same code that the user has installed.
For "genuine" Tuscany dependencies, such conflicts are a real issue
that must be handled carefully in order to get Tuscany to co-exist with
their other software. For sample dependencies, there is no actual
conflict unless the user needs to run the specific sample that pulled
in the dependency,
Like I said earlier in the initial thread about sample dependencies, I
don't think that samples should bring dependencies that are not genuine
Tuscany dependencies.
OK, we are agreed about this. But what if an application-style sample
does have a non-Tuscany dependency? This is certainly possible. Would
the Tuscany distro include the dependency, or leave it up to the user
to download it as a prereq to running the sample?
but it might take them some time to figure out why
putting the Tuscany lib directory on the classpath is causing other
code in their application to break.
I'd suggest structuring the binary distribution as follows:
1. Tuscany runtime in "modules" and its dependencies in "lib".
+1
At the moment we have separate copies of the Tuscany runtime in
"modules" and "lib" and I'm not quite sure why.
Which JARs are you talking about?
I'm talking about the tuscany-sca-all.jar in the lib directory, which
is a combination of the contents of the jars in the modules directory.
The tuscany-sca-manifest.jar refers to the the tuscany-sca-all.jar
as well as referring to all the jars in the modules directory, which
seems somewhat redundant.
2. Tuscany samples source, READMEs and build files in "samples".
+1
3. Tuscany samples binaries in "modules/samples",
I prefer to have the binaries under samples as well, with their source.
Having them there is more convenient but makes it harder to see how
much space they are consuming. I did some investigation, and it
turns out that these binaries are causing a huge expansion in the
size of the "samples" directory.
In the 1.0.1 binary distro, the source under the "samples" directory
occupies around 2.3 MB. The total size of source plus binaries under
this directory is 49.5 MB. This extra 47 MB for samples binaries is
almost half the total size of the Tuscany binary distro. I think we
need to either remove these binaries or separate them out into a
samples download so that we can get the Tuscany binary distro down
to a reasonable size.
with their
dependencies in "lib/samples".
Again samples should not bring additional dependencies in the first place.
I hope this is true. I don't know how to check that nothing in
this category has been included in lib.
By doing this we solve the conflict problems and it becomes a distro
size issue to decide whether 3 should be in the main binary distro
or available separately.
IMO the samples should be small and not cause a size problem, and
therefore should stay in the distro.
+1 that this is how it should be, but it is definitely not the case
today. The samples make up around 50MB of the 100MB total size of
the binary distro. This needs to be fixed.
Since 3 will be clearly separated from 1
and 2, it will be easy to see how much extra size it is contributing.
The other dimension of splitting the distro by functional contents
is orthogonal to the above and is also worth exploring. I'd suggest
the following distro packages:
1. Base runtime with functional capabilities that almost everyone
will want to use, and associated samples.
2. A number of extension bundles (either depending only on the base,
or possibly depending on other bundles), and associated samples.
If people think this approach makes sense then we could talk about
what the base distro and extension bundles should contain.
Makes sense to me, I'd suggest the following packages:
- base SCA runtime (assembly, policy fwk, impl-java)
- web services package (ws binding + related databindings)
- web 2.0 package (json, dwr, widget, atom, scripting)
- data integration (impl-data, openjpa)
- business process integration (bpel, xquery)
- jee integration (ejb, jms, rmi)
- spring + osgi integration (spring, osgi)
- all-in-one, for people who don't have time to solve puzzles.
This looks pretty good as a starting point. If we find that
people are normally downloading the same combinations, we could
look at merging these combinations.
Perhaps group web services and web 2.0 together, I'm not sure.
I think these shouldn't be combined. Web 2.0 applications don't
always use Web services.
Also I'm not sure about where to put policies like security,
reliability, transactions.
Wouldn't these normally be applied to a binding? If so, they should
go with that binding IMO.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
