This thread has been split into multiple sub-threads. The only issue not
included in any new thread is renaming the binding-jms sample to
helloworld-webapp and renaming the samples artifacts to match the
sample-directory name pattern which i think we can do really fast if we
don't have the build
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a full day since I've proposed the *-contribution renaming and no
negative reactions so I'll proceed with doing the changes tomorrow morning.
I've completed the renaming of the contribution-* samples to
Also calculator-osgi, calculator-rest-osgi and logging scribe are failing...
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a full day since I've proposed the *-contribution renaming
dosgi-dynamic-calculator-operations fails as well...
I've committed the poms with the failing samples commented out. Do you think
it's worth checking them out now or wait until we implement the new build
structure as we'll need to get through all of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10
of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Also calculator-osgi, calculator-rest-osgi and logging scribe are
failing...
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Florian MOGA moga
need to get through all of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
All the samples were building successfully in maven relatively
recently. I think we should make them work regardless of the new
structure otherwise we won't know if the sample
checking them out now or wait until we implement the new build
structure as we'll need to get through all of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
All the samples were building successfully in maven relatively
recently. I think we should make
structure as we'll need to get through all of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
All the samples were building successfully in maven relatively
recently. I think we should make them work regardless of the new
structure otherwise we won't
out now or wait until we implement the new
build
structure as we'll need to get through all of the samples again?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com
wrote:
All the samples were building successfully in maven relatively
recently. I think we should make
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a full day since I've proposed the *-contribution renaming and
no negative reactions so I'll proceed with doing the changes tomorrow
snip...
what's the async folder? it's got modules-like pom and seems to include a
launcher... shouldn't the launcher get into running-tuscany and the other
one into getting-started as comments say it demonstrates
synchronous/asynchronous invocation?
I'm going to defer commenting on this
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.comwrote:
The OSGi ones are a bit tricky as they don't really match the new samples
structure, maybe there should be a separate folder for OSGi in samples.
Why do you say that they don't match the structure? They are
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
From what I understand node.xml would be the final configuration that you
would export from the shell after adding/installing all the
contributributions (please correct me if i'm wrong).
Yep thats what i was thinking would
Ant,
I've been looking around and seen that node.xml is actually something
already existing. Is this something we added or is it in the spec as well?
Indeed, it would add consistency if you can generate and load node.xml as
well.
The run command is exactly what I'm suggesting as well as the
It's been a full day since I've proposed the *-contribution renaming and no
negative reactions so I'll proceed with doing the changes tomorrow morning.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Ant,
I've been looking around and seen that node.xml is actually
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Ant,
I've been looking around and seen that node.xml is actually something
already existing. Is this something we added or is it in the spec as well?
No the spec doesn't define anything for this, its one of those areas
I've added a callback-api sample in the getting-started folder derived from
the callback-api-basic integration test. Feel free to check it out and let
me know what should be done next (declaration in parent poms, readmes, wiki
page?).
I'll be looking for an itest that uses sca scopes. Let me know
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
One detail that I've noticed is that we're having a lack for naming
consistency for the samples (e.g. contribution-helloworld /
helloworld-webapp). IMHO using a consistent naming (like
helloworld-contribution /
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
One detail that I've noticed is that we're having a lack for naming
consistency for the samples (e.g. contribution-helloworld /
helloworld-webapp).
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
@Ant: What kind of sample are you thinking of in order to show the
sca-contribution.xml file? Can you give me an example (maybe an itest)?
There are a couple of issues we need to decide on, one is how to run
the getting
I personally like the shell and the shell idea very much and I agree it
would be the way to go (no Maven/Ant discrimination). The major problem in
using the shell is that it implies a decent amount of knowledge with terms
like domain, node, contribution which (we all know) aren't very well defined
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
@Ant: What kind of sample are you thinking of in order to show the
sca-contribution.xml file? Can you give me an example (maybe an itest)?
There are
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I personally like the shell and the shell idea very much and I agree it
would be the way to go (no Maven/Ant discrimination). The major problem in
using the shell is that it implies a decent amount of knowledge with terms
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I personally like the shell and the shell idea very much and I agree it
would be the way to go (no Maven/Ant discrimination). The major problem in
using the shell is that it implies a decent amount of knowledge with terms
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I personally like the shell and the shell idea very much and I agree it
would be the way to go (no Maven/Ant discrimination). The major problem
Shell scripting is an interesting idea and certainly something that
could be added. However, to me, it sounds more like a power user
convenience.
Here's another approach. Why not simply imagine a directory structure
that lays out the various parts of the problem, e..g
domain1
From what I understand node.xml would be the final configuration that you
would export from the shell after adding/installing all the
contributributions (please correct me if i'm wrong). Wouldn't this bring a
bit more overhead as it adds a new syntax, etc. Does it bring more things
other than a
snip...
Being able to export the full application with all the dependencies included
sounds like a must-have to me.
I would add that being able to start up from a full configuration
without the need to run separate commands seems similarly important.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
Given the agreed directory structure, I'd also include in the
getting-started directory the samples illustrating callbacks and scopes
which we were thinking to promote from the itest folder. Thoughts? Which of
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:49 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
Given the agreed directory structure, I'd also include in the
getting-started directory the samples illustrating callbacks and scopes
which
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:21 PM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
I'm making a single wiki page [1] atm, which we can ship/reference as
we like (e.g. PDF). I think I have just got to the point where the
doc structure matches the directory structure. Now its fill in the
blanks
Hi
I'm on vacation and a bit out-dated with the mailing list but if we're still
up to making a clean separation between sca and tuscany features, the
following names came to me which seem self explanatory: oasis-spec-features
/ extra-features.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, kelvin goodson
+1 for single pdf. I think the chances of it getting out-dated or not
reflecting the current structure of the directories are considerably less
than multiple readme-s.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I'm on vacation and a bit out-dated with the
Hi Florian
there seemed to be consensus that we wanted a flatter structure, and
the split wasnt helpful, so everything that was in one of the features
directories is now in the learning-more directory
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I'm on vacation
I'm making a single wiki page [1] atm, which we can ship/reference as
we like (e.g. PDF). I think I have just got to the point where the
doc structure matches the directory structure. Now its fill in the
blanks time :)
Kelvin
[1]
Hi Kelvin,
Given the agreed directory structure, I'd also include in the
getting-started directory the samples illustrating callbacks and scopes
which we were thinking to promote from the itest folder. Thoughts? Which of
them do you think would be most suitable?
Great initiative with the
Hi Kelvin
I just edited the new samples doc page you created [1] to make some
suggestions about
1/ locating some of the helloworld samples
2/ removing launcher from the front of the running-tuscany samples
3/ moving the implementation-osgi sample up one level and hence
loosing the sub-directory
OK, thanks Simon, I'll take a look.
Kelvin.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Kelvin
I just edited the new samples doc page you created [1] to make some
suggestions about
1/ locating some of the helloworld samples
2/ removing launcher from
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Kelvin Goodson
kelvingood...@gmail.com wrote:
That would mean getting started would be hidden away in a sub folder. Maybe
the folder could have a more meaningful name in relation to the getting
started folder. Something like going deeper.
Kelvin
On 22 Sep
OK, so if going deeper or the like works, then I'll go with something
like that. It occurs to me that there might not be the same turn of
phrase in olther languages, so I'm going to avoid the potential
ambuiguity for members of the community whose first language is not
English and use
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
OK, so if going deeper or the like works, then I'll go with something
like that. It occurs to me that there might not be the same turn of
phrase in olther languages, so I'm going to avoid the potential
ambuiguity
The structure aside, could we have concise text file readme's that
point to the website page that has the more detailed doc on the
sample. Looking at other projects, eg servicemix, thats what they do
and it seems to work well. And if necessary then we could also produce
a single pdf including all
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:40 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
The structure aside, could we have concise text file readme's that
point to the website page that has the more detailed doc on the
sample. Looking at other projects, eg servicemix, thats what they do
and it seems to work
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:20 PM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
be good. There seems to be consensus that a flatter structure would
be preferable, so I plan to move the contents of tuscany-features into
the directory
If thats what happens do we even need the sca-features
That would mean getting started would be hidden away in a sub folder.
Maybe the folder could have a more meaningful name in relation to the
getting started folder. Something like going deeper.
Kelvin
On 22 Sep 2010, at 22:33, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
Ok, if there was a mainly flat structure what are your thoughts on
then having at least one folder named something like getting started
that
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:09 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
Ok, if there was a mainly flat structure what are your thoughts on
then
, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
I'm taking another look at the samples again, with a view to having a
better story for the 2.0 beta release. Does anyone have any
particular thoughts about what we need to do
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
In looking at the sample osgi launcher project, there is a parallel
sample-osgi-base project for which the only difference is dependence
on the base jar rather than a set of features. I am currently
splitting the
at 10:37 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
I'm taking another look at the samples again, with a view to having a
better story for the 2.0 beta release. Does anyone have any
particular thoughts about what we need to do with them?
Kelvin.
Firstly, let look to classify
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
The intention was to be identical except for the simpler dependencies.
Is there any reason the two can't stay the same as each other?
...ant
Assuming that we've agreed a consistent mechanism for representing
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:09 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ant elder antel...@apache.org
This morning Ant, Simon L, Kelvin and I had a chat about the samples
structure. We experimented with it at location [1].
The structure is basically the following:
|-applications
|---logging-scribe
|---store
|---store-webapp
|-extending-tuscany
|---implementation-sample
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
This morning Ant, Simon L, Kelvin and I had a chat about the samples
structure. We experimented with it at location [1].
The structure is basically the following:
|-applications
|---logging-scribe
|---store
I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the relation
between sca and tuscany. 'sca-features' and 'sca-extensions' try to make
this distinction. Probably 'sca-features' and 'tuscany-features' would be
best for us but they are confusing for somebody that is just starting to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the relation
between sca and tuscany. 'sca-features' and 'sca-extensions' try to make
this distinction. Probably 'sca-features' and 'tuscany-features' would be
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the relation
between sca and tuscany. 'sca-features' and 'sca-extensions' try to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com
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,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand correctly, that makes the webapps folder a subcategory of
getting-started.
Just to sum it up, the new structure will be something like:
+ getting-started/
- helloworld-*
+ webapps
- helloworld-*
+
OK, this all looks good -- I'll move things in this direction and
catch information in a wiki page that I think will end up as part of
a top level samples README, as in the 1.x travel sample [2].
There's the basis of an async sample at [1] that needs to be brought
into the proper directory.
Looks good to me Florian. A couple of comments in-line...
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand correctly, that makes the webapps folder a subcategory of
getting-started.
Just to sum it up, the new structure will be something like:
+
@Ant: Good points. The important thing now is to have a stable structure and
throughout the time we can populate it with more things. Is it ok opening a
JIRA for this so that we don't forget about the categories you pointed out?
I would keep this in mind as final adjustments before the release
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
If I understand correctly, that makes the webapps folder a subcategory of
getting-started.
Just to sum it up, the new structure will be something like:
+ getting-started/
- helloworld-*
+ webapps
- helloworld-*
+ running-tuscany
- launcher-*
+ sca-features
- implementation-*
- binding-*
+
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
I'm taking another look at the samples again, with a view to having a
better story for the 2.0 beta release. Does anyone have any
I agree about it being a bit disorganized and that makes it hard to
know where to start, there's so much stuff in the samples folder and
its all doing different types of things. I think i'd like to move all
the helloworld type things into a sub folder so as to separate it out
from the more
I'm taking another look at the samples again, with a view to having a
better story for the 2.0 beta release. Does anyone have any
particular thoughts about what we need to do with them?
Kelvin.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM, kelvin goodson
kelvingood...@apache.org wrote:
I'm taking another look at the samples again, with a view to having a
better story for the 2.0 beta release. Does anyone have any
particular thoughts about what we need to do with them?
Kelvin.
Firstly, let
70 matches
Mail list logo
