Distribution structure

I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new distribution infrastructure at www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ We need to make a decision about how this will be structured. As a default I assume we stick pretty much with what we have already (see http://archive.apache.org/dist/inc

Re: Distribution structure

That sounds ok to me. ...ant On Feb 1, 2008 3:10 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new > distribution infrastructure at > > www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ > > We need to make a decision about how this will be structured. A

Re: Distribution structure

+1 Simon Laws wrote: I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new distribution infrastructure at www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ We need to make a decision about how this will be structured. As a default I assume we stick pretty much with what we have already (see http://arc

Re: Distribution structure

Sounds ok. On Feb 1, 2008 8:09 AM, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > > Simon Laws wrote: > > I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new > > distribution infrastructure at > > > > www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ > > > > We need to make a decision about how this w

Re: Distribution structure

+1 from me. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tuscany-dev" Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:10 AM Subject: Distribution structure I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new

Re: Distribution structure

Looks fine to me On 1 Feb 2008, at 16:09, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 Simon Laws wrote: I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new distribution infrastructure at www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ We need to make a decision about how this will be structu

Re: Distribution structure

Simon Laws wrote: I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new distribution infrastructure at www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ We need to make a decision about how this will be structured. As a default I assume we stick pretty much with what we have already (see http://archive

Re: Distribution structure

+1. (sorry missed this mail... I see the v1.1 artifacts uploaded in this structure already). Thanks - Venkat On Feb 1, 2008 8:40 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking at copying the 1.1 release artifacts up onto the new > distribution infrastructure at > > www.apache.org/dist

[jira] Created: (TUSCANY-2380) Modular distribution structure

Modular distribution structure -- Key: TUSCANY-2380 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2380 Project: Tuscany Issue Type: Wish Components: Build System Reporter: Jean

Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

I'm starting a new thread for this as suggested by Sebastien. Simon Simon Laws wrote: On Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (cut) I don't think we should put sample dependencies in the bin distro lib folder. If we need to include them in the bin distro (and I'm n

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 18, 2007 9:31 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm starting a new thread for this as suggested by Sebastien. > > Simon > > Simon Laws wrote: > > > On Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > (cut) > >> > >>I don't think we should put sample dependenc

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

[snip] Simon Nash wrote: Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have moved beyond that stage and are doing real development using Tuscany, samples are not very important. If people in this category do want samples, they are likely to just want to refer to samples source c

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Sebastien, We would like to enable a binary Tuscany distribution to run under OSGi. I am not sure of the level of granularity at which a bundle-ized Tuscany makes sense in terms of providing modularity and versioning using OSGi. But I would like to make sure that the bundles from the list below c

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: [snip] Simon Nash wrote: Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have moved beyond that stage and are doing real development using Tuscany, samples are not very important. If people in this category do want samples, they are likely to just

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 22, 2007 1:57 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > > [snip] > > Simon Nash wrote: > > > >> Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have > >> moved beyond that stage and are doing real development using Tuscany, > >> samples a

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 22, 2007 2:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 22, 2007 1:57 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > Simon Nash wrote: > > > > > >> Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have > > >> mo

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

All that sounds sense to me, especially the thought of turning our samples to simple contribution jars. That will align better with what application developers would actually do. - Venkat On Nov 22, 2007 8:21 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 22, 2007 1:57 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAI

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

OSGi runtime, instead of relying on Tuscany distribution structure. I have an Eclipse plugin which shows the dependency graphs based on the import/export statements generated by the maven-bundle-plugin. I could compare these with the dependencies you generated (it might help to add appropriate

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

nstall Tuscany into an OSGi runtime, instead of relying on Tuscany distribution structure. I have an Eclipse plugin which shows the dependency graphs based on the import/export statements generated by the maven-bundle-plugin. I could compare these with the dependencies you generated (it might he

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Simon Laws wrote: On Nov 22, 2007 2:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (cut) I can do some more processing on ( http://people.apache.org/~slaws/dependencies.htm) to give some help here if required. What do the columns mean? Si

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 26, 2007 5:18 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Simon Laws wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 2007 2:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > (cut) > > > > I can do some more processing on ( > > http://people.apache.org/~slaws/dependencies.htm

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

[snip] Simon Nash wrote: I would like to make a start on improving the modularity of the distro by building a distro containing only a base SCA runtime. Sebastien's description of this was - base SCA runtime (assembly, policy fwk, impl-java) [snip] I haven't yet figured out how to do a sandbo

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

t, can you explain? I would also like to add OSGi manifest entries into all jars distributed by Tuscany including 3rd party jars, so that we can use the OSGi bundle repository API to install Tuscany into an OSGi runtime, instead of relying on Tuscany distribution structure. Not sure I'd

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've just committed a runtime-war module as a start of whats being talked > about here, which could be merged or replace distribution/webapp at some > point. I'll post some more details later. One comment inline below: > > ...ant >

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

I've just committed a runtime-war module as a start of whats being talked about here, which could be merged or replace distribution/webapp at some point. I'll post some more details later. One comment inline below: ...ant On Nov 23, 2007 6:00 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 27, 2007 2:29 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've just committed a runtime-war module as a start of whats being > > talked > > about here, which could be merged or replace distribution/webapp at some > > po

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

ant elder wrote: On Nov 27, 2007 2:29 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've just committed a runtime-war module as a start of whats being talked about here, which could be merged or replace distribution/webapp at some

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Rajini Sivaram wrote: Sebastien, We would like to enable a binary Tuscany distribution to run under OSGi. I am not sure of the level of granularity at which a bundle-ized Tuscany makes sense in terms of providing modularity and versioning using OSGi. But I would like to make sure that the bundl

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: [snip] Simon Nash wrote: I would like to make a start on improving the modularity of the distro by building a distro containing only a base SCA runtime. Sebastien's description of this was - base SCA runtime (assembly, policy fwk, impl-java) [snip] I haven't yet

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

Hi, I recently read the article on osoa.org: 《Power_Combination_SCA_Spring_OSGi.pdf》 This article gave great impression to me(and my colleague). So I think here making Tuscany an osgi based container, will boost Tuscany onto a new era. I think from the architect view of Tuscany, it is very

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 27, 2007 4:11 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ant elder wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 2007 2:29 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>On Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I've just committed a runtime-war module as a start

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 28, 2007 10:24 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 27, 2007 4:11 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ant elder wrote: > > > > > On Nov 27, 2007 2:29 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > >>On Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PR

Re: Distribution structure for SCA Java 1.1 release (was Re: Sample dependencies not pulled in distribution)

On Nov 28, 2007 11:41 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 10:24 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 2007 4:11 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > ant elder wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2007 2:29 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED