If you are following this thread you may like to use the recent comment in the jira [1] to catch up on where things are (still lots of entropy yet)
Kelvin. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3677?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Florian MOGA <moga....@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh ok, so osgi integration contains things that would fall in multiple > categories. It's just that i thought we shouldn't have too specific > categories in the root of the samples folder. Either structure is fine by > me. Are there other opinions which would help us deciding? > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >> > @Simon: Regarding the calculator sample, I don't know the exact content >> > of >> > it. You guys are probably better suited to take this decision. >> > Regarding the osgi samples, I personally wouldn't go into much deeper >> > fragmentation at the root level of the samples/ folder, but I can see it >> > as >> > a special subfolder of sca-features/ (like webapps/ for >> > getting-started/). >> > But I also don't know what the osgi integration consists of.. >> > (implementations, bindings?) >> > >> > >> >> If we're going to put it under features it would probably be better to >> separate out the individual features, e.g. >> >> sca-features/ >> implementation-osgi >> distributed-osgi/ >> static/ >> dynamic/ >> osgi-runtime/ >> >> We then already have some launcher content and we could extend it, e.g. >> >> running-tuscany/ >> launcher-embedded-osi/ >> launcher-osgi-runtime/ >> >> If people like this better than that's fine by me >> >> Simon >> >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > >
