I think that there are a couple of issues around doing this. There are a handful of things which the deployer of the service will want to configure. The Configuration interface still seems viable to me and groovy config is a great thing to get into circulation it seems to me.
What I'd like to suggest is that we create a large amount of security as a default detail. Configuration should provide the ability to turn it down/off. That way safe computing is the default. I have some things in mind but have not got them fleshed out yet for real discussion. Gregg Wonderly Sent from my iPad On May 22, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Dennis Reedy <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to solicit some ideas into what would be the source and > configuration content so a River archetype [1] can be created. This will > allow developers to create a working River maven project in seconds. I know > Chris Sterling developed one a few years back, but I think we can do this one > a little differently. Some questions: > > Generate a simple service that just provides an empty interface, service impl > and configuration? > For configuration, use the Jini configuration approach or can we move forward > with adopting the Groovy configuration provider? > Generate a JavaSpace project? > Should the Rio classdepandjar mojo be used to build the artifacts? In this > way we can produce the service, dl and api artifacts right out of the gate. > What to provide for testing the application? Does the River test framework > make sense to include? > > Feedback would be great. > > Dennis > > [1] Info on Maven archetypes: > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-archetypes.html > http://maven.apache.org/archetype/maven-archetype-plugin/
