On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Millies, Sebastian > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not sure about moving up to Tuscany 2.0. Can anyone comment on the >> state of the 2.0 code to help me decide? >> > > You should definitely move to 2.x, and in the case that you might be > using some extensions not yet migrated to 2.x let us know, or let us > migrate it. > >> A few things come to mind: >> Have the specifications on which 2.0 is based even been finalized by OASIS? >> How stable is the code? There are many bugs in JIRA for 2.0, but much fewer >> for >> 1.6 - is it because 2.0 is in a state of flux, or because no one bothers with >> 1.6 anyway? > > 2.x has been in more active development, and we are also tracking > compliance fixes/todos via jira, that's probably why. > >> What about the sad lack of documentation for 2.0? > > A lot of 1.x documentation still applies to 2.x. We have also started > a wiki to migrate 2.x specific documentation at > http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/ > >> The very fine >> book "Tuscany SCA in Action" is based on 1.4 - how much of that will survive >> for 2.0? How much work would it be to migrate to 2.0 later on? What >> constructs >> should be avoided now to make such migration easier (conversational >> interfaces >> etc.)? >> > > A lot of the concepts haven't changed, samples might change a little, > but people have started porting the Travel Sample to 2.x as well, > which is the sample used in the book. > >> When developing a business application, with a team that does not have much >> SCA experience, at the moment I'd feel slightly safer with 1.6. Do you think >> I should overcome that feeling? >> > > Yes, and if you find issues, you will definitely get a quicker fix if > this is in the 2.x code stream. > > > Well, these are my personal view.. others feel free to jump with your > thoughts. > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
I would say that 1.6 is a more stable code base just by virtue of that fact that we're not doing lots of development there. We are still changing quite fundamental things in 2.x as we work toward OASIS spec compliance (we are nearly there for the core specs Assembly, JCAA, JCI, Policy, WS). As Luciano says there are not vast differences between 1.x and 2.x but some of the details of SCA have change and some features have been removed added, for example, 2.x doesn't support conversational interface but does support JAXWS style asynchronous interfaces. I've just added a page to the 2.x doc [1] to capture instructions for converting from 1.x to 2.x. The website will take a while to refresh so you may not see this straight away. It's very much a work in progress which I hope the rest of the community will contribute to. My personal view is that It's difficult to advise precisely which to choose just at the moment because 2.x isn't actually released properly, we're at the milestone/beta stage, and it depends how much you're willing to get involved in moving 2.x toward it's first proper release. It is true though that there is more active development on 2.x so if you're looking to do something new/out of the ordinary you more likely to get attention in 2.x. We are though still fixing some bugs in 1.x if you decide to go that route. [1] http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/converting-tuscany-1x-applications.html Regards Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
