On 8/6/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > >> Bringing this thread up again as time is ticking on if we want to get a > >> release out this month. How would people feel about taking a branch for > this > >> release in a bit less than 2 weeks, say aiming for the 14/15th of > August? > >> That should just about give enough time for clean up and voting to get > a > >> release out by the end of August. > >> > >> Another thing I wondered about was the name, we've been talking about > this > >> being 0.92, how about something higher to show we're getting closer, > maybe > >> 0.95 or 0.98 or even 0.99? (that prompts a what/when is 1.0, I'll start > a > >> separate thread about that) > >> > >> ...ant > >> > > What/when is 1.0? Good question :) There has been a lot of progress in > the recent 0.90 and 0.91 releases and I agree that Tuscany SCA is > getting close to a 1.0 release. > > So, let's start discussing "What is Tuscany 1.0". I'm moving this thread > to the tuscany-user list as I'd like to get feedback, requests and ideas > from Tuscany users. > > Speaking for myself, here's some thoughts on what I'm interested in > having in a 1.0 release: > > * SCA assembly spec 1.0 support > Looks close to complete here, I think it just needs a little more > testing and a simple implementation of a distributed domain. Simon seems > to be making good progress in that area. Also I'd like to have a simple > admin console to add/remove contributions and composites and allocate > components to nodes. > > * SCA Policy framework 1.0 > Modules policy and policy-xml are taking shape. Having one concrete > policy like Security implemented on top the framework would be good. > Maybe Venkat could give his thoughts on this? > > * Extension points for component implementations, bindings, databindings > and policies > SPIs need a little cleanup as they're starting to carry a number of > deprecated interfaces/methods. There's no extensibility mechanism for > policies yet but it shouldn't be too hard to add that with a pattern > similar to the existing extension points. > > * SCA Java APIs and Annotations 1.0 > Almost complete, just missing a complete implementation of > ServiceReferences and a few conversational annotations. I'd like to > refine the SCADomain.getService() API too. Also, on a separate but > related note, a better Java proxy (better than a JDK proxy) would be > great, I've seen a Cglib proxy contributed recently, how about extending > that idea to all proxies? > > * Spring component implementation > This looks in a good shape. Mike, what else are you planning to do there? > > * WS binding > What is left to do? The SCA Java Releases wiki page lists some work > items in this space, which ones do people think should be done for a 1.0 > release? > > * JMS binding > Seems to partly work but will need a little more to align with the > latest spec. Anybody interested in helping with it? > > * Feed and JSON bindings > IMO important to have to integrate with Web 2.0 apps. The Feed binding > is fine as far as I can tell. What do people think remains to be done > for the JSON binding? > > * Scripting component implementation > I've been a happy user of <implementation.script> but have not tried > using complex types and much integration with bindings. What's left to > be done here? > > * Geronimo integration > I'd like to be able to deploy SCA contributions to Geronimo, looks like > there's good progress on that front. I'd also like to support the > integration of Webapps in SCA compositions as <implementation.web> > components. > > * Docs > Our architecture docs could use some improvements and cleanup :). For > user docs, what do people think about developing more tutorials and > variations around the Online Store tutorial? > > * Samples > Some of them need minor cleanup. Are we missing samples in any specific > area? > > * Other implementation and binding extensions > We have starters or partial support for <implementation.notification>, > <implementation.bpel>, <binding.ejb>, <binding.rmi>, > <implementation.osgi>. Could people help get these extensions in the > release? > > Thoughts? Anything people would like to discuss and get included in > Tuscany SCA 1.0, please bring it up... > > -- > Jean-Sebastien
The simple admin console to add/remove contributions etc sounds good, i'd quite like that to work with the webapp distribution - what do people think about having the webapp distribution? I think its good and makes all the things like the multiple contribution support make more sense and easier to use, most other similar projects have a war distribution - axis2, synapse, servicemix, mule etc, but do we want this? Not sure supporting every corner of all the SCA spec's is necessary for a Tuscany 1.0, if we do fine, but i think its more important that Tuscany SCA just does useful things and is useable, so +1 to things like improving the diagnostics and error handling story, and to making things more easy to use. Getting some resolution and consistency on the binding URIs that has being discussed on other threads would be part of that, as would the SPI and samples tidy up, and making all the wsdl tooling and databinding things work well together. Policy support would be great but isn't so exciting unless we've something that actually uses it, so i think we should try real hard to get WS-Security or WS-RM going with the WS binding so we can show SCA really does make it as easy as "Say requires='confidentiality'. Done.". There's also lots of little things we should do, cleaning up svn and artifact names etc, we could review all TODO/FIXME comments in the code, maybe raise JIRAs for the more significant ones and add jira number to comment and see what that brings to light. ...ant
