Re: Using Tuscany in a webapp, was: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
I think the M2 arrangement for the construction of the WAR file was quite complex and hard to reproduce by non-maven users who didn't have the special plugin. I wrote some documentation for the web site in case anyone wanted to do this with M2 and it wasn't very easy, especially the Jave-serialized-to-XML format for decribing dependencies. I think it's important to support Tomcat integration but I've never been very keen on requiring every WAR file to contain a complete Tuscany runtime. In M1 we had an alternative approach with a single copy of the runtime that could be shared by multiple webapps. It would be good to support both the bundled and unbundled runtime styles of packaging. Simon Simon Laws wrote: On 4/21/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] Luciano Resende wrote: > +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core functions, > other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a > Domain > concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration > with > App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC > integration. > Do we still need a special Tuscany WAR Maven plugin? I was under the impression that the Tuscany WAR plugin was there to automate the packaging of all the pieces of Tuscany runtime and their configuration in a WAR, assuming that it was probably too complicated to do that packaging by hand. Before reactivating this machinery, could we take a moment and have a discussion to understand why this packaging was so complicated that we needed a special Maven plugin to take care of it? and maybe come up with a simpler packaging scheme for Web applications and WARs? To put this discussion in context, I'm going to start with a very simple question... What do we want to use WARs for? What scenarios do we want to support in our next release that will require a WAR? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi My desire for WAR packaging was to allow people to easily deploy Tuscany applications (samples?) to existing web application installations. I.e. allow Tuscany to be plugged into environments people are familiar with. I was mulling over how to get some more interesting samples into the Java space, e.g. porting over Andy's alert aggregator sample from the C++ SCA implementation, and this is why I happened to be thinking about how to make it work. But we have also had a recent exchange on the user list on this subject [1]. I actually hadn't considered the mechanism by which this is achieved. I wasn't aware this was being done in the past by a mvn plugin I was just aware that, certainly in M1, you could see Tuscany samples as WAR files that were used with Tomcat in the release. Its good that you have started this discussion. Lets get consensus on whether we should provide it. Also if there is an easier and more natural way of providing this integration then we should investigate that, e.g. if this integration should he host-webapp or host-tomcat, host-apache etc. then that's fine. If it's already done then even better. Regards Simon [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00839.html -- Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using Tuscany in a webapp, was: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
On 4/21/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] Luciano Resende wrote: > +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core functions, > other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a > Domain > concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration > with > App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC > integration. > Do we still need a special Tuscany WAR Maven plugin? I was under the impression that the Tuscany WAR plugin was there to automate the packaging of all the pieces of Tuscany runtime and their configuration in a WAR, assuming that it was probably too complicated to do that packaging by hand. Before reactivating this machinery, could we take a moment and have a discussion to understand why this packaging was so complicated that we needed a special Maven plugin to take care of it? and maybe come up with a simpler packaging scheme for Web applications and WARs? To put this discussion in context, I'm going to start with a very simple question... What do we want to use WARs for? What scenarios do we want to support in our next release that will require a WAR? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi My desire for WAR packaging was to allow people to easily deploy Tuscany applications (samples?) to existing web application installations. I.e. allow Tuscany to be plugged into environments people are familiar with. I was mulling over how to get some more interesting samples into the Java space, e.g. porting over Andy's alert aggregator sample from the C++ SCA implementation, and this is why I happened to be thinking about how to make it work. But we have also had a recent exchange on the user list on this subject [1]. I actually hadn't considered the mechanism by which this is achieved. I wasn't aware this was being done in the past by a mvn plugin I was just aware that, certainly in M1, you could see Tuscany samples as WAR files that were used with Tomcat in the release. Its good that you have started this discussion. Lets get consensus on whether we should provide it. Also if there is an easier and more natural way of providing this integration then we should investigate that, e.g. if this integration should he host-webapp or host-tomcat, host-apache etc. then that's fine. If it's already done then even better. Regards Simon [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00839.html
Using Tuscany in a webapp, was: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
[snip] Luciano Resende wrote: +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core functions, other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a Domain concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration with App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC integration. Do we still need a special Tuscany WAR Maven plugin? I was under the impression that the Tuscany WAR plugin was there to automate the packaging of all the pieces of Tuscany runtime and their configuration in a WAR, assuming that it was probably too complicated to do that packaging by hand. Before reactivating this machinery, could we take a moment and have a discussion to understand why this packaging was so complicated that we needed a special Maven plugin to take care of it? and maybe come up with a simpler packaging scheme for Web applications and WARs? To put this discussion in context, I'm going to start with a very simple question... What do we want to use WARs for? What scenarios do we want to support in our next release that will require a WAR? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
