hi Simon (Laws) - You are welcome. I have learnt a lot in this process. Its a great framework. And I would be happy to help with summarizing as concisely as possible into a wiki. If you all indicate a thread that needs to be summarized I can move it to a GoogleDoc or such to share it, refine it with you all and then post to the wiki. Of course the GoogleDoc can still be linked with examples and such.
I plan to work with SDO / DAS so can help there as well. Maybe we can try and move towards some Pitfalls / Best Practices with key inter-operable frameworks such as DAS / JDBC / REST / EJB and such. I will try and keep it as simple and concise as possible. You all have a lot of topics in your book to begin with - and maybe some elements could be summarized, re-referenced and referred back to the book pages for reference? I can try to address the variability issues that SCA addresses - staring with Languages (CPP, Java,...) and move into the other dimensions. Hopefully will start to use the right terminologies. ---------- hi Simon (Nash) - Thanks for the updates and clarifications and your help through this. Now based on your comments below - have a few more to add. 1. I understand the distinction between service and object and will try to refer to it accordingly from now. 2. Regarding returning as a POJO (ArrayList) vs encapsulated in object as QueryResponse (which has the ArrayList) - you say is fine. Good - but when moving to ws.binding and using JAXB datatypes - will that still work? Meaning if I return JAXB datatypes encapsulated in QueryResponse - will that work or would I have to return PO JAXB O? Maybe should come with an acronym here - POXO? Plain Old XML Objects? :-) 3. Reference vs Wire - Thanks for the explanation. Just wanted to mention that I like the aspect of <wire> being outside the <component> definition. Reason, to me, is - as an app gets more complex and assuming multi-domain - it would be good to see all linkage <wires>, <references> - in one place. <reference> does not allow that to happen as it is always withing a <component> definition. <wire> does but then limited by single-domain. It would be good if <wire> (or some other similar) could do that too as - as a developer could just go to the <wire> section and see what has been setup - and not have to go through the <component> definitions. Hope its a valid statement as I have not done a large scale SCA impl yet. But already I feel I want to quickly see what is connected and deciphering <references> in each <component> section becomes tedious. But that's just me, so its a suggestion. Great! Thanks again and look forward to contributing. monosij On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Simon Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon Laws wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Millies, Sebastian >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Monosij, >>> >>> >>> >>> thank you for that very helpful post. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone still using the Tuscany Wiki? There isn’t much up-to-date stuff >>> in >>> it, >>> >>> but perhaps it would be worthwhile including information like this. >>> >>> >>> >>> What do people think – should one create a new top-level page >>> >>> “Using Tuscany: Tips and Pitfalls” or somesuch to collect posts like >>> >>> Monosij’s summary? >>> >>> >>> >>> n Sebastian >>> >>> >>> >>> >> +1 from me. We should probably take a look at the wiki generally and >> try and remove the cruft that has built up there. >> >> Simon >> >> +1 for adding information like this to the wiki. > > Simon > >
