Hi, Simon.
A few comments:
1) It seems that you're looking for a collection of tuscany
runtime/extension jars which provides you the artifacts to build the web
application offline using ant or manually. I don't think it's appropriate to
add them to the standalone distro though because it serves as the runtime
for standalone applications instead of a traditional binary distro.
2) There may be another scenario that a distro is desired for web
applications. In that case, the tuscany runtime/extension jars will be
shared by the Tomcat server level (I remember we did a similar thing before
by leveraging common/lib and server/lib?). This configuration is not
supported today. I'm not sure it should be considered.
3) I also feel a bit scary by looking at the ant script which packages the
WAR file. A prebuilt ant script can help one sample application, but won't
the end-users be scared as well imaging they have to write such a script to
deal with other web applications? Can we defer it to M3 so that we can have
a better picture instead of rushing to M2 which is very close to the
release?
4) As for the ant script itself, I suggest that you use the nested elements
(such as lib, classes, webinf and metinfo) for "war" task instaed of a bunch
of "copy" tasks as documented @
http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/war.html.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Adding 2 webapp jars to binary distro
Rick wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I think this highlights one of the challenges with Ant-based build
environments. Although Ant provides the mechanisms for executing the
build scripts it does not provide a method for locating the
dependencies needed at build-time - for example, to compile or
repackage; often they are simply checked in alongside the user's
source. This was one of the key issues that the Maven project
originally set out to solve and which led to the establishment of the
repo systems.
I have not had a chance to see how your scripts address locating these
dependencies. I realize that some, like SDO, are (undesirably) located
in the standalone distro; others like spring, jaxb, json, js are not
(or at least I hope they are not). It would help (in my currently
disconnected state) if you could describe how your environment handles
these.
We will be making all the dependencies (including these) available
through the maven repository system. As I explained in an earlier
mail, the release vote would include not just the binary and other
archives but also /all/ of the artifacts we release through the repo;
this addresses Ant's concern about IPMC approval.
At a fundamental level, I would question whether using the standalone
runtime distribution as the basis of a build environment is the way to
be going. Would we be better served producing a "library"
Wouldn't if we added javadoc, SDOgen, Java2WSDL, WSDL2Java, War Plugin
commandline to this be essentially a Tuscany SDK?
Yes, it would, and for M3 it would be good to talk about whether
this is a useful thing to provide. At the moment I am focused on
the minimum needed to solve the specific problem of building simple
webapps using ant scripts that don't require custom tasks.
I have attached the 2 ant scripts that I have completed so far to
TUSCANY-906. I'd appreciate suggestions for improvement, especially
to the webapp one. In their current state, they can't handle extension
dependencies. I'm going to look into creating a custom ant task that
will support this in a similar manner to the Tuscany maven war plugin.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
