On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
It's a bit challenging to run a simple SCA J2SE helloworld sample.
Here's the folder structure you have to deal:
helloworld
--- bin: the launcher.jar, sca-api.jar and host-util.jar
--- boot: core.jar, spi.jar, etc
--- extension: axis2.jar (optional)
helloworld.jar
Then you can use the launcher to run helloworld sample.
I fully understand the value of isolation for different level of
code. I just have a feeling maybe it's too much for a poor J2SE
user to get the basic sample working.
Ah so this is referring to J2SE client (i.e. from main) and not in a
managed environment. I still think this is not that big of a deal.
I personally prefer to have directories where I can stick things than
a huge classpath. It also avoids the pain of package collisions with
application code. Embedded Jetty works like this and I've found it
pretty straightforward.
People will also still have to deal with SCDL anyway and that should
be in a well-defined location. Having extensions in a well-defined
location does not seem to be an additional burden.
More importantly, if we are trying to make the use case of a single
reference used by a J2SE client easier, I'd would say don't use SCA
for that. Just use Axis (or some other transport) directly. Where SCA
is valuable is in assembly of multiple services.
I have some related questions here:
1) Is it possible to use SCA with Tuscany inside a traditional J2SE
application with a flat classpath?
Can you give a more detailed use case? If it is just accessing one
service, or a couple, then my answer would probably be the same as
above: use the transport directly, it will always be much easier. If
you want to have an application with one SCA service in it wired to
others, then a container needs to be deployed and it is not an "J2SE
application" anymore, it is an "SCA application running in a J2SE host".
2) Where should the dependency jars go? It includes the dependency
jars for core runtime and extensions.
I'm not sure I follow, what is "it"?
3) Can I have one extension depend on another extension?
Sure, in which case we need to calculate the transitive closure of
all dependencies and adjust classpaths accordingly. OSGi will do this
for us.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Marino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Avoiding extension and application scdl collisions
On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I understand we endeavor to support isolated classloading for
system, extension, and application. But I think we should be
able to run a SCA application with the runtime and extension
jars on its classpath if the user chooses to do so.
Could you explain your reasons why? The only case where I can see
this being a good thing for the user is if an extension offers
APIs or libraries that must be accessed from the application. In
that case, those APIs or libraries should be loaded in a parent
to the extension classloader which is then given as a parent to
the application classloader (which would be multiparent).
Jim
To be consistent with the SCA spec (xxx.composite), I suggest
that we have the following conventions.
core: META-INF/tuscany/system.composite (with includes)
extension: META-INF/tuscany/extension.composite
application: META-INF/sca/application.composite
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "tuscdev" <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: Avoiding extension and application scdl collisions
I kind of have and closer idea why interop unit testcases fail
when run from the maven command line. It appears the forking
for some reason I'm still not 100% sure of puts the
Axis2Binding jar in the same classloader as the application
scdl. It could be the fork actually has dependencies need by
the testcase already on the classpath? In any case when the
application scdl is being search for it is being found in the
extension jar because the default resource name is the same
for both extensions and application scdl (META-INF/sca/
default.scdl) I can for the testcase specifically rename the
application scdl to something different and it then works. To
avoid this and also provide the flexibility to load in one
classloader scope would having default names as follows be
reasonable?:
META-INF/tuscany/system/system.scdl. (system)
META-INF/tuscany/extension/default.scdl (extensions)
META-INF/sca/default.scdl (application)
(not too sure how this plays with the SCA archive proposal)
Also, I'm wondering if it is already possible, if we could add
an xml attribute to system and extension scdl to identify it as
such so when we are expecting one type and it does not have
this attribute we throw an exception? This would have been a
whole lot more helpful to me than the resulting NPE?
Thought?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
