Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Mike.
It's a very good summary. The different perspectives are now well
separated and they should be discussed on different threads to avoid
further confusions :-).
Please see some more comments inline.
I added a couple of responses on specific points below.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
b) A variety of functional components, that represent sets of coherent
functions.
Each consists of a series of the basic modules, aggregated together.
Their function in life is to assist developers of
Thanks Mike for putting things in perspective. It always helps to think of
these topics in terms of problem that we are trying to solve and who the
audience is before we get into the details of how to solve it. Your idea of
creating wiki pages for each of these topics will help clarify things
ant elder wrote:
So just to be clear on what is being suggested this would be like the
launcher we used to have back in M2 days right?
...ant
No, the M2 launcher mixed too many different aspects:
a) load the Tuscany JARs
b) download then from the network as necessary
b) launch your
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
So just to be clear on what is being suggested this would be like the
launcher we used to have back in M2 days right?
...ant
No, the M2 launcher mixed too many different aspects:
a)
Simon Nash wrote:
Actually this isn't quite what I was saying. (Sorry that I wasn't clear.)
I'm talking about the lowest level components that we distribute as
binaries, not about larger groupings that are created from these components
to provide convenient aggregations of functionality. These
Hi, Mike.
It's a very good summary. The different perspectives are now well separated
and they should be discussed on different threads to avoid further
confusions :-).
Please see some more comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
From: Mike
+1 from me also. We shouldn't confuse modularity purely with
versioning or whether something can be used on its own. It's also
about being able to make different combinations of modules to fit
different deployment profiles.
I think it was Ant who first brought up the distinction between what
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is
required. Let's take the contribution stuff as an example.
1) contribution contains the interfaces for the contribution model and
default implementation classes, SPIs and
Graham Charters wrote:
+1 from me also. We shouldn't confuse modularity purely with
versioning or whether something can be used on its own. It's also
about being able to make different combinations of modules to fit
different deployment profiles.
I agree with that, and this should be
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if some of this debate is due to us not all talking about they same
thing so maybe it would help to go back to this proposal:
Here's what I'd like to see as a user:
- a short list of API JARs that I can
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is
required. Let's take the contribution stuff as an example.
1) contribution contains the
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is
required. Let's take the contribution stuff as an example.
1) contribution
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if some of this debate is due to us not all talking about they same
thing so maybe it would help to go back to this proposal:
Here's what I'd like to see as a user:
- a short list of
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is
On 6/10/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Rajini Sivaram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
If we are anyway going to require a launcher of some form,
wouldn't it be just as easy to maintain one-bundle-per-module?
I agree, if we go back to requiring a launcher that changes a lot how we'd
could put this
If we assume one bundle per Tuscany module for developers, perhaps
there's a need for a separate concept that provides a simplified view
for users? The SpringSource Application Platform has the concept of a
library, which has caused much debate in the OSGi world (it has its
own manifest header).
On 6/11/08, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we assume one bundle per Tuscany module for developers, perhaps
there's a need for a separate concept that provides a simplified view
for users? The SpringSource Application Platform has the concept of a
library, which has caused much
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Rajini Sivaram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
,snip
You have probably read this already, but others may find Neil Bartlett's
discussion useful:
http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/extensions-vs-services/
Great article, thanks for the link. Thats over a year old
2008/6/11 ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Rajini Sivaram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
,snip
You have probably read this already, but others may find Neil Bartlett's
discussion useful:
http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/extensions-vs-services/
Great article,
Hi Rajini, couple of comments below
2008/6/11 Rajini Sivaram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 6/11/08, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we assume one bundle per Tuscany module for developers, perhaps
there's a need for a separate concept that provides a simplified view
for users? The
Comments inline.
Simon
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
On 6/10/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is required.
Let's take the contribution stuff as an example.
1) contribution contains the interfaces for the contribution model and
default implementation classes, SPIs and extension points
2) contribution-xml deals with the
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
There are a few patterns we use to determine if a maven module is
required. Let's take the contribution stuff as an example.
1) contribution contains the interfaces for the contribution model and
default implementation classes, SPIs and extension points
2)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building and
what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building and
what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building
and
what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we
Hi,
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
[snip]
Good requirement, but I don't think that the current manifest +
tuscany-all JAR solution is a good one (for example it mixes APIs and
internals in the same JAR, doesn't work well with IDEs, works only for one
big distro, requires
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
[snip]
Good requirement, but I don't think that the current manifest +
tuscany-all JAR solution is a good one (for example it mixes APIs and
internals in the same JAR, doesn't work well with IDEs, works only for
one big
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building
and what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I was thinking
Mike Edwards wrote:
...
Are people interested in exploring these ideas?
Jean-Sebastien,
I'll start with the last question first: YES.
But I'd next like to step back from what I can see is developing into a
somewhat active debate (to use a neutral euphemism)
:)
and investigate
the big
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
[snip]
Good requirement, but I don't think that the current manifest +
tuscany-all JAR solution is a good one (for example it mixes APIs and
internals in the same
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Good debate here, but let's be clear about the big picture before the
details swamp the debate.
Big +1 to that, i really hope we can some consensus on what the
distributions and runtimes should look like before we
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building and
what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I was thinking about the following binary distro
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been out sick for a few
days and I am just getting back to my Tuscany mail. Comments inline.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Comments inline.
Simon Nash wrote:
Well, I think the smart installer approach will be a nightmare. We
had a similar
On Feb 10, 2008 10:06 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But that's OK, if people don't like that split I can also live with a
single big runtime distro.
Over time, we will add more and more optional features and this will
become more and more of a problem. IMO, it's bad enough
ant elder wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 10:06 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But that's OK, if people don't like that split I can also live with a
single big runtime distro.
Over time, we will add more and more optional features and this will
become more and more of a problem. IMO,
Comments inline.
Simon Nash wrote:
Well, I think the smart installer approach will be a nightmare. We had
a similar approach in M2 and people didn't like it.
The M2 approach was very different from what I was proposing. M2
downloaded everything on demand at runtime. A smart installer would
Comments inline.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
Jean-Sebastien,
Let's chat some more about objectives, to see why we're seeming to
look at this differently:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I was thinking about the following binary distro zips:
-
On Feb 3, 2008 7:49 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
One thing looking at those Spring downloads is that i think they're more
comaprable to out SCA, SDO, and DAS downloads.
I don't understand why you're saying that. I was following a scheme
similar to Spring in my
On Feb 2, 2008 3:23 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I agree with the objectives. The
ant elder wrote:
[snip]
I'm leaning more towards what Mike is suggesting.
OK it doesn't look like we're reaching a consensus as at least two
people don't seem to like the scheme I proposed.
I take it back then, forget about my proposal, but I still think that a
single download containing
Jean-Sebastien,
Let's chat some more about objectives, to see why we're seeming to look
at this differently:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people
Mike Edwards wrote:
Jean-Sebastien,
Let's chat some more about objectives, to see why we're seeming to look
at this differently:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I was thinking about the following binary distro zips:
- tuscany-core.zip - The base that everybody needs.
core assembly
On 02/02/2008, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I agree with the objectives. The second of
Mike Edwards wrote:
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I agree with the objectives. The second of the two is more important
from my perspective.
I was thinking about
Folks,
As with Simon Nash - sorry for my slow reply but the SCA spec work has
been a hard master over the past 2 weeks ;-)
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- What distro Zips are we building and what do they contain? just the
runtime? samples
Comments inline.
Simon
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
As with Simon Nash - sorry for my slow reply but the SCA spec work has
been a hard master over the past 2 weeks ;-)
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- What distro Zips are we building
On 31/01/2008, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments inline.
Simon
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
As with Simon Nash - sorry for my slow reply but the SCA spec work has
been a hard master over the past 2 weeks ;-)
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Sorry for the late response. I have been travelling and in OASIS
meetings, and I'm just catching up with the ML now.
See comments inline.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- What distro Zips are we building and what do they contain?
On Jan 29, 2008 3:09 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the late response. I have been travelling and in OASIS
meetings, and I'm just catching up with the ML now.
See comments inline.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Thank you, Sebastien. Graham or I will provide the changes once the new
distribution poms are ready.
Thank you...
Regards,
Rajini
On 1/24/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
Would it be possible to add an OSGi manifest header into these zip files
so
Would it be possible to add an OSGi manifest header into these zip files so
that the zips can be directly installed into an OSGi runtime? The entries
will not have any impact when used without OSGi. The only issue would be the
creation of these entries. We have two options - 1)generate them
ant elder wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 5:53 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
If this is mainly about reducing the size of the download
[snip]
No
I'm puzzled by this. One of the two goals at the start of this thread was
smaller packages.
I'm puzzled that you find that
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
Would it be possible to add an OSGi manifest header into these zip files so
that the zips can be directly installed into an OSGi runtime? The entries
will not have any impact when used without OSGi.
+1
The only issue would be the
creation of these entries. We have two
On Jan 24, 2008 5:36 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 5:53 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
If this is mainly about reducing the size of the download
[snip]
No
I'm puzzled by this. One of the two
There are two tools in Apache felix can probably help:
1) mangen - OSGi Bundle Manifest generator
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Bundle+Manifest+Generator+%28mangen%29
We could use it to create OSGi bundles out of the existing jars.
2) Maven Bundle Plugin 1.2.0
We could use
Raymond Feng wrote:
[snip]
- tuscany-jee.zip - For JEE app integration
EJB, RMI and JMS bindings, Spring components
I think we should have WS binding in tuscany-jee.zip as WS is part of
JEE. (Maybe -jee should be a superset of -web).
JEE like other platforms supports Web Services but I
ant elder wrote:
[snip]
Would each distro include everthing it needs or is tuscany-core.zip a
prereq?
tuscany-core is a prereq. That's what I meant with tuscany-core - The
base that everybody needs.
Where do all the different data bindings go?
Some in tuscany-core, some in tuscany-web,
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- What distro Zips are we building and what do they contain? just the
runtime? samples or not? dependencies or not? are we building
specialized distros for different use cases?
[snip]
With a big topic like this, dividing it into separate
On Jan 22, 2008 5:36 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
- What distro Zips are we building and what do they contain? just the
runtime? samples or not? dependencies or not? are we building
specialized distros for different
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:36 AM
Subject: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes
Simon Nash wrote:
68 matches
Mail list logo
