Simon Nash wrote:
>> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- Under which circumstances does the app packager want to package the
Tuscany and dependency JARs with the application artifacts.
[snip]
With a big topic like this, dividing it into separate threads makes it
easier for people to follow and participate in the discussions. The
split you are suggesting looks good to me.
[snip]
Trying to address "Under which circumstances does the app packager want
to package the Tuscany and dependency JARs with the application artifacts?"
My (maybe simplistic) view is:
A) We can package in a WAR:
- several SCA contributions JARs
- any SCA deployment composites
- the required API JARs
- the required Tuscany JARs and runtime dependency JARs
This allows deployment of an SCA/Tuscany based solution to JEE Web
containers without requiring any system configuration or software
installation besides the Webapp.
There are some basic architectural limitations to that scheme:
- no good support for other bindings than HTTP based bindings
- footprint issue with every Webapp packaging the whole runtime
Also we're not quite there yet as I don't think we support:
- several SCA contributions in the packaged solution
- SCA deployment composites
B) Package SCA contributions as simple JARs, containing only the
application artifacts (no API JARs, no runtime dependency JARs).
Packaging SCA contributions as OSGi bundles is a variation of the same
scheme.
Any thoughts?
What other packaging schemes do people want to support and when?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
