On 5/28/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Graham Charters wrote: > > > >> I've been wondering whether we should make this an itest rather than a > >> sample. We could keep it as a sample, but it relies on > >> maven-dependency-plugin to work out the dependencies required to run > >> the sample. Is a sample that only works with maven acceptable (I > >> believe the other samples do not) or should I change this to be an > >> itest? > >> > >> We do try hard to make the samples work with ant as well as maven. > > There have been cases where samples started out with maven support > > only and the ant support was added later. From your description, > > it doesn't sound lke this is likely to happen. > > > > I believe the main purpose of this "sample" is to act as a test for > > the Tuscany build rather than a sample for a user to copy and adapt. > > If this is correct, I think it should be changed to an itest. > > > > Simon > > > > > > Regards, Graham. > >> > >> 2008/5/23 Graham Charters (JIRA) <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>: > >> > >>> [ > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12599389#action_12599389 > ] > >>> > >>> Graham Charters commented on TUSCANY-2330: > >>> ------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Hi Rajini, sorry for taking so long to respond. Please go ahead and > >>> check the code in with your update. Changing it to use Felix is fine > by me. > >>> I tested it with both and there was little discernible difference in > >>> performance. > >>> > >>> Thanks, Graham. > >>> > >>> Calculator sample running in OSGi > >>>> --------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Key: TUSCANY-2330 > >>>> URL: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2330 > >>>> Project: Tuscany > >>>> Issue Type: Wish > >>>> Components: Java SCA Samples > >>>> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-Next > >>>> Environment: All > >>>> Reporter: Graham Charters > >>>> Fix For: Java-SCA-Next > >>>> > >>>> Attachments: calculator-osgi-sample.patch > >>>> > >>>> Original Estimate: 2h > >>>> Remaining Estimate: 2h > >>>> > >>>> It would help with preserving OSGi support if an OSGi sample were run > as > >>>> a matter of course, rather than only by a small number of > developers. This > >>>> wish is to add the smallest sample possible based on existing Tuscany > module > >>>> dependencies. > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > >>> - > >>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > As we have a distribution that doesn't fundamentally depend on, and hence > demonstrate, how Tuscany might be deployed in an OSGi environment then I > think that a sample that shows how to do this is appropriate. If this means > that we have a sample that only runs from maven then it's inconsistent with > our other samples but I could live with that. > > I guess the real answer is do you think a user could base an OSGi > installation on what they learn by looking at the sample. I haven't looked > at the sample yet myself. Does this bring host-osgi back to life? Is this > sample going to be reworked in the short term as the code is moved around? > If yes then that would be a justification for keeping it out of samples.
In its current form, the "sample" is too complicated - but it can be simplified quite easily to enable it to be used as both a sample and a test. If this is going to be an itest, I would really like it to reuse code from itest/osgi-tuscany rather than create a new copy of the code, requiring maintenance of two copies. As an itest, this subset should only add maven scripts to create a new set of dependencies. All the code can be used straight out of itest/osgi-tuscany rather than through a copy. Since this code is likely to change a lot as we tackle versioning etc., and since the calculator subset doesn't really add any new code, it would be much easier to maintain a single copy of the code rather than two (even though both are identical at the moment). IMO, it only makes sense to use a separate copy if the code is expected to diverge. Regards > > Simon > -- Thank you... Regards, Rajini
